On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:41:08 -0000, wrote:

On Jun 27, 9:49 am, Puddin' Man wrote:

I'd say I'm more aware of what's going on than you are. Faced with a
decision of buying a TV, I prefer to find out the facts, which are
readily available

Industry hype.


Look, there is plenty of info available today about HDTV from a
variety of resources, many of which are not connected to some evil
industry conspiracy. You obviously won't even look at it, yet you
go around telling people calamity is ahead.

Who posted opinionated stuff first? You or I?

You can stick you head
in the sand, while the rest of us move ahead.

and actually look at an HDTV compared to a regular
one. The facts are, ATSC broadcasting is up and running. The 85%+
who have cable or sat have HD available. Network prime time is in
HD. NYC even has HD livecam from news helicopters. The first HD DVDs
and players are appearing. All new TVs sold in the US now have a
built-in ATSC tuner. The prices for HDTVs have dropped dramatically.
And 16 million HDTVs will be sold this year.

I've seen 'em. In the store (a somewhat artificial environment),
they look better. But not -that- much better.

And do you know what you were looking at? Just because it's an HDTV
doesn't mean the program that happened to be on at the moment was HD.
In stores, I've seen all kinds of material being shown and at times,
it wasn't HD at all. It's gotten better in the last couple years,
but before that in many stores that I've seen it was pretty bad. But
if you have an HDTV with and HD source, and a regular TV next to it,
the difference is huge.

Granted a material difference.

I have no problem with your wanting your pretty pictures in
highly defined resolution. You will pay for what your get.
I begrudge you nothing in this regard.

Remember the "Vast Wasteland"? It still exists. Millions of
viewers lounge around every evening in front of the tube or
son-of-tube. They scarcely take notice of what's on the
screen because they know it's mostly drivel. ATSC/HD drivel
is not materially superior to NTSC drivel.

Lord help po' me. I read books! :-) Part of me wants to
pitch the goddamn tube out the window.


'Tis the cost/benefit curve, as applied to the public at large,
that you fail to comprehend. Possibly because you're just
not interested in what effects others.

You make these sweeping statements with out elaboration.

You haven't exactly flooded the byte-waves with source-info
your-own-self.

The cost to
the public at large? If you have 2 tv's and buy 2 ATSC tuners, you'd
be out about $50. Is that so bad?

Suggest you Google "ATSC tuners" re price and availability. And who
wants an external box when they don't need one?

When the local or state govt
decides to buy open land or make a new park and your tax bill goes up
that much for something you personally never will use, do you get all
upset too?

Depends on lots of things.

And further, for the public at large, the fed govt is
gonna get billions when they sell the bandwith previously used by
NTSC. That sounds like a lot of money they can **** away instead of
instead of taking it from taxes.

They'll be cashing in on a public resource. It's an entirely different
topic, but I damned well don't like what they're doing with our money.

So, where exactly is this big cost/
benefit problem that I fail to comprehend.

It's something you've chosen not to contemplate.

You instead ask your buddy, the cable guy, who predicts that something
very bad is going to happen and the changeover to ASTC is gonna turn
to chaos, so you shouldn't do anything about your TV that needs
replacement He's proably one of those cable guys we heard about who
show up to install cable and can't figure out how to correctly hook
the new digital box component video outputs up to the HDTV.

Hey, it's OK to get abusive. It's obvious that you lack info about
both my circumstances and my friend (who, 'tho retired, knows
vastly more about the industry than either of us).

Yeah, I tend to get that way when someone who dismisses readily
available info from a wide variety of sources and obviously knows less
than zero about HD, tries to tell me I'm some kind of mindless dummy
that's bought into a bunch of hype.

Let the record show that the "mindless dummy" phrase was of your
own devise. I implied only gullibility and/or personal interest.
The net is rife with both.

They pump up the hype in preparation for shoving the unproven
technology down the consumers throats. You seem to accept it all at
face value. You are their "Perfect Consumer". Or perhaps an
industry employee. Eh?


What exactly is "unproven"? About a third of US homes now has an
HDTV.

More sourceless claims. Even if true, ATSC is still an unproven
tech. in the homes of a majority of US folks. More than that,
the relative utility of ATSC vs NTSC given costs of each is
very much unproven. It's not enough to (correctly) say that
it's a "much prettier picture".

ATSC broadcasting has been up for years. Every TV set sold
now has an ATSC tuner. Geez, I notice for all the facts and
statistics I cite in an attempt to have a reasonable discussion, you
counter with what? No facts. Just personal feelings, and the
opinion of your buddy the cable guy, that HD/ATSC is unproven stuff,
heading for calamity. Now thats what I call hype.

Lordy Mercy! A conspiracy of one? Hype?? g

BTW, I'm not an industry empoyee, though I am an electrical engineer,
so perhaps I know a little more about technology than you or your
cable guy.

And, as an EE, I'm sure you and your employer(s) reap no benefits
whatsoever (direct or indirect) from the ATSC mandate. :-)

Perhaps as an EE, you have some idea of what a mess they made of
NTSC over the years?

And you think it will truly be different with ATSC?

That's it, I'm out of here. No further response will ensue.

Puddin'

"Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens!"
-Friedrich Schiller

On Jun 27, 5:36 pm, Puddin' Man wrote:


Who posted opinionated stuff first? You or I?



Well you began the discussion back and forth with this:

"I was considering purchase of a new tv and had little idea which way
to jump (HD, etc), so I asked a career cable tv friend. He advised
to do nothing, buy nothing, as the proverbial **** is *bound* to hit
the fan around 2009, and noone can much predict how it will all
shake out. I expect a hideous, hideous mess and a massive, behemoth
boondoggle. "


So, I'd say it's clear who posted opinionated stuff first.




You can stick you head
in the sand, while the rest of us move ahead.

and actually look at an HDTV compared to a regular
one. The facts are, ATSC broadcasting is up and running. The 85%+
who have cable or sat have HD available. Network prime time is in
HD. NYC even has HD livecam from news helicopters. The first HD DVDs
and players are appearing. All new TVs sold in the US now have a
built-in ATSC tuner. The prices for HDTVs have dropped dramatically.
And 16 million HDTVs will be sold this year.

I've seen 'em. In the store (a somewhat artificial environment),
they look better. But not -that- much better.

And do you know what you were looking at? Just because it's an HDTV
doesn't mean the program that happened to be on at the moment was HD.
In stores, I've seen all kinds of material being shown and at times,
it wasn't HD at all. It's gotten better in the last couple years,
but before that in many stores that I've seen it was pretty bad. But
if you have an HDTV with and HD source, and a regular TV next to it,
the difference is huge.

Granted a material difference.

Hmmm, now how can that be? You claimed that HD/ATSC was just a scam
being perpetrated on a dumb public by "the industry" through hype and
NTSC was perfectly fine. Yet, now there is a "material difference"
So, which is it?



I have no problem with your wanting your pretty pictures in
highly defined resolution. You will pay for what your get.
I begrudge you nothing in this regard.

Remember the "Vast Wasteland"? It still exists. Millions of
viewers lounge around every evening in front of the tube or
son-of-tube. They scarcely take notice of what's on the
screen because they know it's mostly drivel. ATSC/HD drivel
is not materially superior to NTSC drivel.

Then why were you considering buying a new TV at all? Just turn it
off.




Lord help po' me. I read books! :-) Part of me wants to
pitch the goddamn tube out the window.

Just do nothing, your problem will probably go away in 2009





'Tis the cost/benefit curve, as applied to the public at large,
that you fail to comprehend. Possibly because you're just
not interested in what effects others.

You make these sweeping statements with out elaboration.

You haven't exactly flooded the byte-waves with source-info
your-own-self.

Now please. You posted this gem:

Correct me if I'm wrong. You are not 100% in touch with:
What digital eqpt. will be offered and at what price.

I told you every friggin TV set sold in the US as of NOW has a
frigging ATSC digital tuner in it.

and this gem:

Exactly what dig. transmissions will be offered and when.

I told you it's been available for years in most of the US. You
could do a little web search and find out yourself, but any info
available, according to you, is industry hype. Here's an idea, call
up your local TV stations and ask.




The cost to
the public at large? If you have 2 tv's and buy 2 ATSC tuners, you'd
be out about $50. Is that so bad?

Suggest you Google "ATSC tuners" re price and availability. And who
wants an external box when they don't need one?

This isn;t some deep dark unknown mystery. The electronics chips
have been developed and are in mass production. At the present rate,
16 million will be sold this year, which means they are in volume
production and inexpensive. They are going into every TV set in the
US made today and haven't impacted the price noticeably. So, what
great technological, manufacturing, or economic hurdle remains? All
that needs to be done is put the same chips in a little box with a
power supply and remote. Which means the cost projections of the
standalone ATSC tuners costing $75 bucks in 2009 are based on real
data and are accurate. Not convinced? How about this? You can buy
an ATSC tuner box today on Ebay for $90

http://cgi.ebay.com/RJ-1000ATSC-ATSC...QQcmdZViewItem

Is that enough info for you?




When the local or state govt
decides to buy open land or make a new park and your tax bill goes up
that much for something you personally never will use, do you get all
upset too?

Depends on lots of things.

And further, for the public at large, the fed govt is
gonna get billions when they sell the bandwith previously used by
NTSC. That sounds like a lot of money they can **** away instead of
instead of taking it from taxes.

They'll be cashing in on a public resource. It's an entirely different
topic, but I damned well don't like what they're doing with our money.

So, where exactly is this big cost/
benefit problem that I fail to comprehend.

It's something you've chosen not to contemplate.

I have contemplated it, as has Congress, the broadcast industry,
consumer electronics industry, and the 30% of US homes that already
own an HDTV. All you do is come up with nonsense like this without
any explanation about exactly what is troubling you so much. Instead
of listening to your cable guy friend and buying into his FUD, you can
go down to the mall tonight and buy that TV with an ATSC tuner in it.
You'd never even know it's there.




Let the record show that the "mindless dummy" phrase was of your
own devise. I implied only gullibility and/or personal interest.
The net is rife with both.

I'll let other judge who has a command of the facts and knows what
he's talking about and who obviously knows less than nothing.



They pump up the hype in preparation for shoving the unproven
technology down the consumers throats. You seem to accept it all at
face value. You are their "Perfect Consumer". Or perhaps an
industry employee. Eh?

What exactly is "unproven"? About a third of US homes now has an
HDTV.

More sourceless claims. Even if true, ATSC is still an unproven
tech. in the homes of a majority of US folks. More than that,
the relative utility of ATSC vs NTSC given costs of each is
very much unproven. It's not enough to (correctly) say that
it's a "much prettier picture".


Here's a source for you:

"CEA Report Finds 30 Percent of U.S. Households Own Hi-Def TV

ARLINGTON, June 27: A new report from the Consumer Electronics
Association (CEA) reveals that 30 percent of U.S. households now own
high-definition televisions (HDTV)-expected to rise to 36 percent by
the end of this year-but also finds that more consumers are buying
HDTVs to improve their movie and gaming experiences rather than for
watching television programming

The new CEA study, HDTV: You Have the Set, But Do You Have the
Content?, found that 16 million high-definition televisions (HDTV)
will sell this year, bringing the total number of HDTVs sold in the
U.S. to 52.5 million"


Yet according to you and your cable buddy genius, it's all hype and
unproven.



ATSC broadcasting has been up for years. Every TV set sold
now has an ATSC tuner. Geez, I notice for all the facts and
statistics I cite in an attempt to have a reasonable discussion, you
counter with what? No facts. Just personal feelings, and the
opinion of your buddy the cable guy, that HD/ATSC is unproven stuff,
heading for calamity. Now thats what I call hype.

Lordy Mercy! A conspiracy of one? Hype?? g

No, just two dummies.


BTW, I'm not an industry empoyee, though I am an electrical engineer,
so perhaps I know a little more about technology than you or your
cable guy.

And, as an EE, I'm sure you and your employer(s) reap no benefits
whatsoever (direct or indirect) from the ATSC mandate. :-)

Yeah that's right you dope, because I'm self employed today as a
trader and have nothing to do with any company involved in any way
with TV or consumer electronics.


Perhaps as an EE, you have some idea of what a mess they made of
NTSC over the years?


Funny from the guy that wants to keep NTSC going and says how its all
the vast majority want or need. LOL And for the record, anyone who
understands how far NTSC got us for half a century would not refer to
it a mess that someone made.



And you think it will truly be different with ATSC?

That's it, I'm out of here. No further response will ensue.

That's good, we've had enough of you making an ass of yourself.

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:37:14 -0000, wrote:

On Jun 27, 2:10 pm, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:50:55 -0400, George
wrote:





Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:37:43 -0000, wrote:

[snip]

Damned if I know how you can claim "everyone is better off in the end".

Yes, some will be worse off, but not by much. There is a small
minority that receive NTSC today over the air and don't accept the
value proposition of having an HD picture that puts to shame what they
are watching now,

Strangely, I find the difference (HD resolution compared to 480 lines)
to be nearly insignificant. There is a considerable difference, but
most of that is in ATSC, rather than HD.

Because everyone seems to confuse what is happening.

That's happening a lot. There's a lot of (wrong) claims that NTSC
won't exist after 2009. I expect an eventual lack of NTSC, but it will
take a lot longer than that.

Well the "claims" are based directly on the federal govt which has set
2009 as the turnoff date for NTSC.

That is not true, as has already been posted here a few times. The law
applies to OTA BROADCASTING, not the video format itself. Other uses
of NTSC, such as cable and security cameras are not affected.

Now, its possible, indeed I would
say probably likely that the date could be pushed out again, but I
think the claims as of now are in fact correct.


[snip]
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Never underestimate the power of stupid
people in large groups"

On Jun 27, 10:24 pm, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:37:14 -0000, wrote:
On Jun 27, 2:10 pm, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:50:55 -0400, George
wrote:

Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:37:43 -0000, wrote:

[snip]

Damned if I know how you can claim "everyone is better off in the end".

Yes, some will be worse off, but not by much. There is a small
minority that receive NTSC today over the air and don't accept the
value proposition of having an HD picture that puts to shame what they
are watching now,

Strangely, I find the difference (HD resolution compared to 480 lines)
to be nearly insignificant. There is a considerable difference, but
most of that is in ATSC, rather than HD.

Because everyone seems to confuse what is happening.

That's happening a lot. There's a lot of (wrong) claims that NTSC
won't exist after 2009. I expect an eventual lack of NTSC, but it will
take a lot longer than that.

Well the "claims" are based directly on the federal govt which has set
2009 as the turnoff date for NTSC.

That is not true, as has already been posted here a few times. The law
applies to OTA BROADCASTING, not the video format itself. Other uses
of NTSC, such as cable and security cameras are not affected.


When someone says "turnoff date for NTSC is 2009", I think it's clear
that they mean OTA broadcasting of NTSC, ie, the transmitter is being
turned off. We all know the FCC isn't gonna come into your house
and turn off the NTSC output from your VCR or security camera. If
you're going to state that the claim is false, then you should be
specific about what exactly you are disagreeing with. Your initial
statement that the claims are false, with no explanation, would lead
people to believe that nothing is being turned off.




Now, its possible, indeed I would
say probably likely that the date could be pushed out again, but I
think the claims as of now are in fact correct.

[snip]
--
Mark Lloydhttp://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Never underestimate the power of stupid
people in large groups"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

wrote:
On Jun 27, 10:24 pm, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:37:14 -0000, wrote:
On Jun 27, 2:10 pm, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:50:55 -0400, George
wrote:
Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:37:43 -0000, wrote:
[snip]
Damned if I know how you can claim "everyone is better off in the end".
Yes, some will be worse off, but not by much. There is a small
minority that receive NTSC today over the air and don't accept the
value proposition of having an HD picture that puts to shame what they
are watching now,
Strangely, I find the difference (HD resolution compared to 480 lines)
to be nearly insignificant. There is a considerable difference, but
most of that is in ATSC, rather than HD.
Because everyone seems to confuse what is happening.
That's happening a lot. There's a lot of (wrong) claims that NTSC
won't exist after 2009. I expect an eventual lack of NTSC, but it will
take a lot longer than that.
Well the "claims" are based directly on the federal govt which has set
2009 as the turnoff date for NTSC.
That is not true, as has already been posted here a few times. The law
applies to OTA BROADCASTING, not the video format itself. Other uses
of NTSC, such as cable and security cameras are not affected.

No, but some cable providers are already trying to muscle people into
getting digital STBs claiming the FCC is requiring them to remove
analog. Interestingly there are a lot of people who just don't care
about digital/premium channels etc. From what I have read the cable
companies still have 50% of their users with basic plans and no STBs.




When someone says "turnoff date for NTSC is 2009", I think it's clear
that they mean OTA broadcasting of NTSC, ie, the transmitter is being
turned off. We all know the FCC isn't gonna come into your house
and turn off the NTSC output from your VCR or security camera. If
you're going to state that the claim is false, then you should be
specific about what exactly you are disagreeing with. Your initial
statement that the claims are false, with no explanation, would lead
people to believe that nothing is being turned off.



Now, its possible, indeed I would
say probably likely that the date could be pushed out again, but I
think the claims as of now are in fact correct.
[snip]
--
Mark Lloydhttp://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Never underestimate the power of stupid
people in large groups"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 13:07:17 -0000, wrote:

On Jun 27, 10:24 pm, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:37:14 -0000, wrote:
On Jun 27, 2:10 pm, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:50:55 -0400, George
wrote:

Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:37:43 -0000, wrote:

[snip]

Damned if I know how you can claim "everyone is better off in the end".

Yes, some will be worse off, but not by much. There is a small
minority that receive NTSC today over the air and don't accept the
value proposition of having an HD picture that puts to shame what they
are watching now,

Strangely, I find the difference (HD resolution compared to 480 lines)
to be nearly insignificant. There is a considerable difference, but
most of that is in ATSC, rather than HD.

Because everyone seems to confuse what is happening.

That's happening a lot. There's a lot of (wrong) claims that NTSC
won't exist after 2009. I expect an eventual lack of NTSC, but it will
take a lot longer than that.

Well the "claims" are based directly on the federal govt which has set
2009 as the turnoff date for NTSC.

That is not true, as has already been posted here a few times. The law
applies to OTA BROADCASTING, not the video format itself. Other uses
of NTSC, such as cable and security cameras are not affected.


When someone says "turnoff date for NTSC is 2009", I think it's clear
that they mean OTA broadcasting of NTSC,

I read what people actually write.

ie, the transmitter is being
turned off. We all know the FCC isn't gonna come into your house
and turn off the NTSC output from your VCR or security camera. If
you're going to state that the claim is false, then you should be
specific about what exactly you are disagreeing with. Your initial
statement that the claims are false, with no explanation, would lead
people to believe that nothing is being turned off.


So, you read things, make up stuff, and blame the writer. I never said
"nothing is being turned off". That is a creation of your imagination.




Now, its possible, indeed I would
say probably likely that the date could be pushed out again, but I
think the claims as of now are in fact correct.

[snip]
--
Mark Lloydhttp://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

BTW, I continue to examine my sig (which is a text file), and it has
the correct line terminator in all places. I am not causing it to be
mishandled (ignoring the second line terminator, while honoring all
the others). Look elsewhere for a bug. It also doesn't include that "-
Hide quoted text -, - Show quoted text -" **** that Google keeps
adding for no apparent reason.


"Never underestimate the power of stupid
people in large groups"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Never underestimate the power of stupid
people in large groups"

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 09:50:55 -0400, George
wrote:

wrote:
On Jun 27, 10:24 pm, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:37:14 -0000, wrote:
On Jun 27, 2:10 pm, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:50:55 -0400, George
wrote:
Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:37:43 -0000, wrote:
[snip]
Damned if I know how you can claim "everyone is better off in the end".
Yes, some will be worse off, but not by much. There is a small
minority that receive NTSC today over the air and don't accept the
value proposition of having an HD picture that puts to shame what they
are watching now,
Strangely, I find the difference (HD resolution compared to 480 lines)
to be nearly insignificant. There is a considerable difference, but
most of that is in ATSC, rather than HD.
Because everyone seems to confuse what is happening.
That's happening a lot. There's a lot of (wrong) claims that NTSC
won't exist after 2009. I expect an eventual lack of NTSC, but it will
take a lot longer than that.
Well the "claims" are based directly on the federal govt which has set
2009 as the turnoff date for NTSC.
That is not true, as has already been posted here a few times. The law
applies to OTA BROADCASTING, not the video format itself. Other uses
of NTSC, such as cable and security cameras are not affected.

No, but some cable providers are already trying to muscle people into
getting digital STBs claiming the FCC is requiring them to remove
analog.

Apparently there is no such FCC requirement. That's all I meant.

Interestingly there are a lot of people who just don't care
about digital/premium channels etc. From what I have read the cable
companies still have 50% of their users with basic plans and no STBs.


Yes, the cable company here does seem to be trying to get everyone to
have one of their boxes (while saying nothing about Cable CARD).




When someone says "turnoff date for NTSC is 2009", I think it's clear
that they mean OTA broadcasting of NTSC, ie, the transmitter is being
turned off. We all know the FCC isn't gonna come into your house
and turn off the NTSC output from your VCR or security camera. If
you're going to state that the claim is false, then you should be
specific about what exactly you are disagreeing with. Your initial
statement that the claims are false, with no explanation, would lead
people to believe that nothing is being turned off.



Now, its possible, indeed I would
say probably likely that the date could be pushed out again, but I
think the claims as of now are in fact correct.
[snip]
--
Mark Lloydhttp://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

Who is responsible for mutilating my sig? There IS a line terminator
after my name.


"Never underestimate the power of stupid
people in large groups"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Never underestimate the power of stupid
people in large groups"

On Jun 28, 9:39 am, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 13:07:17 -0000, wrote:
On Jun 27, 10:24 pm, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:37:14 -0000, wrote:
On Jun 27, 2:10 pm, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:50:55 -0400, George
wrote:

Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:37:43 -0000, wrote:

[snip]

Damned if I know how you can claim "everyone is better off in the end".

Yes, some will be worse off, but not by much. There is a small
minority that receive NTSC today over the air and don't accept the
value proposition of having an HD picture that puts to shame what they
are watching now,

Strangely, I find the difference (HD resolution compared to 480 lines)
to be nearly insignificant. There is a considerable difference, but
most of that is in ATSC, rather than HD.

Because everyone seems to confuse what is happening.

That's happening a lot. There's a lot of (wrong) claims that NTSC
won't exist after 2009. I expect an eventual lack of NTSC, but it will
take a lot longer than that.

Well the "claims" are based directly on the federal govt which has set
2009 as the turnoff date for NTSC.

That is not true, as has already been posted here a few times. The law
applies to OTA BROADCASTING, not the video format itself. Other uses
of NTSC, such as cable and security cameras are not affected.

When someone says "turnoff date for NTSC is 2009", I think it's clear
that they mean OTA broadcasting of NTSC,

I read what people actually write.

ie, the transmitter is being
turned off. We all know the FCC isn't gonna come into your house
and turn off the NTSC output from your VCR or security camera. If
you're going to state that the claim is false, then you should be
specific about what exactly you are disagreeing with. Your initial
statement that the claims are false, with no explanation, would lead
people to believe that nothing is being turned off.

So, you read things, make up stuff, and blame the writer. I never said
"nothing is being turned off". That is a creation of your imagination.



I didn't make up anything. In a discussion in the context of
converting to ASTC, HD, etc, you posted:

"There's a lot of (wrong) claims that NTSC
won't exist after 2009. I expect an eventual lack of NTSC, but it
will
take a lot longer than that. "


Now do you think that lent clarity to the discussion? If you wanted
to clarify what is going on, you could instead have simply said the
2009 date applies to broadcast NTSC, which won't exist after 2009.
That is what the general discussion has been about in this thread,
moving from NTSC to ATSC and HD, and some folks complaining because
they will need a DTV converter box for OTA after NTSC is turned off in
2009. Everybody knows it's silly to think that in Feb 2009 the
FCC is gonna come turn off your VCR output or your security camera
that is still NTSC . Your post left the impression that talk about
2009 is all based on false claim. In fact, your whole reply actually
makes little sense, because NTSC will of course exist in some form not
just a lot longer, but indefinitely, if you want to extend the
discussion to all the consumer electronics, VCR tapes, DVD;s etc that
are NTSC compatible. They aren't going to vanish.

And where are these false claims that anything other than NTSC OTA is
going to vanish? If you keep in context the discussion, I don't see
any such claims have been made here.

The $ increase, suprised me since I haven't seen and increase in CRT's
in 20 years.

Your post (below) reminds me of the 3rd rock from the sun episode when
the aliens buy a dvd, a huge sound system and a big screen tv. And as
they are (sitting around) bragging about the quality , one alien's earth
GF reminds them they're watching 'Gremlins'...!! That line killed me.
And it was quite true. In most cases people have built an altar in
worship of 'what' exactly? I'd be afraid to see Bill O'Reilly's face in
any more detail than I already do..Or do I need to see Flava Flav smack
his bitch down in more detail?

There remains kinks in the digital techonogy such as the blur I reffered
to in my OP. Delivery of so much resolution (data?) takes time and if
the players move too fast, that can eat up bandwith and slow down
delivery and cause a blur. At least that is my understanding of it.
Kinda like when I scroll too fast on my puter? To me it's just not
worth it.

I recetly purchased 3 of the 'old' style tv's for a new home. I was
assured on many fronts that the change would only affect OTA broadcast..




CRT TVs

Group: alt.home.repair Date: Wed, Jun 27, 2007, 10:36pm (EDT+4) From:
(Puddin'*Man)
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:41:08 -0000, wrote:
On Jun 27, 9:49 am, Puddin' Man wrote:
I'd say I'm more aware of what's going on than you are. Faced with a
decision of buying a TV, I prefer to find out the facts, which are
readily available
Industry hype.
Look, there is plenty of info available today about HDTV from a variety
of resources, many of which are not connected to some evil industry
conspiracy. * * You obviously won't even look at it, yet you go
around telling people calamity is ahead.
Who posted opinionated stuff first? You or I?
You can stick you head
in the sand, while the rest of us move ahead.
and actually look at an HDTV compared to a regular one. The facts are,
ATSC broadcasting is up and running. The 85%+ who have cable or sat have
HD available. Network prime time is in HD. NYC even has HD livecam from
news helicopters. The first HD DVDs and players are appearing. All new
TVs sold in the US now have a built-in ATSC tuner. The prices for HDTVs
have dropped dramatically. And 16 million HDTVs will be sold this year.
I've seen 'em. In the store (a somewhat artificial environment), they
look better. But not -that- much better.
And do you know what you were looking at? * Just because it's an HDTV
doesn't mean the program that happened to be on at the moment was HD. In
stores, I've seen all kinds of material being shown and at times, it
wasn't HD at all. * It's gotten better in the last couple years, but
before that in many stores that I've seen it was pretty bad. But if you
have an HDTV with and HD source, and a regular TV next to it, the
difference is huge.
Granted a material difference.
I have no problem with your wanting your pretty pictures in highly
defined resolution. You will pay for what your get. I begrudge you
nothing in this regard.
Remember the "Vast Wasteland"? It still exists. Millions of viewers
lounge around every evening in front of the tube or son-of-tube. They
scarcely take notice of what's on the screen because they know it's
mostly drivel. ATSC/HD drivel is not materially superior to NTSC drivel.
Lord help po' me. I read books! :-) Part of me wants to pitch the
goddamn tube out the window.
'Tis the cost/benefit curve, as applied to the public at large, that you
fail to comprehend. Possibly because you're just not interested in what
effects others.
You make these sweeping statements with out elaboration.
You haven't exactly flooded the byte-waves with source-info
your-own-self.
The cost to
the public at large? * If you have 2 tv's and buy 2 ATSC tuners, you'd
be out about $50. * Is that so bad?
Suggest you Google "ATSC tuners" re price and availability. And who
wants an external box when they don't need one?
When the local or state govt
decides to buy open land or make a new park and your tax bill goes up
that much for something you personally never will use, do you get all
upset too?
Depends on lots of things.
And further, for the public at large, the fed govt is gonna get billions
when they sell the bandwith previously used by NTSC. That sounds like a
lot of money they can **** away instead of instead of taking it from
taxes.
They'll be cashing in on a public resource. It's an entirely different
topic, but I damned well don't like what they're doing with our money.
So, where exactly is this big cost/
benefit problem that I fail to comprehend.
It's something you've chosen not to contemplate.
You instead ask your buddy, the cable guy, who predicts that something
very bad is going to happen and the changeover to ASTC is gonna turn to
chaos, so you shouldn't do anything about your TV that needs replacement
* He's proably one of those cable guys we heard about who show up to
install cable and can't figure out how to correctly hook the new digital
box component video outputs up to the HDTV.
Hey, it's OK to get abusive. It's obvious that you lack info about both
my circumstances and my friend (who, 'tho retired, knows vastly more
about the industry than either of us).
Yeah, I tend to get that way when someone who dismisses readily
available info from a wide variety of sources and obviously knows less
than zero about HD, tries to tell me I'm some kind of mindless dummy
that's bought into a bunch of hype.
Let the record show that the "mindless dummy" phrase was of your own
devise. I implied only gullibility and/or personal interest. The net is
rife with both.
They pump up the hype in preparation for shoving the unproven technology
down the consumers throats. You seem to accept it all at face value. You
are their "Perfect Consumer". Or perhaps an industry employee. Eh?
What exactly is "unproven"? * About a third of US homes now has an
HDTV.
More sourceless claims. Even if true, ATSC is still an unproven tech. in
the homes of a majority of US folks. More than that, the relative
utility of ATSC vs NTSC given costs of each is very much unproven. It's
not enough to (correctly) say that it's a "much prettier picture".
ATSC broadcasting has been up for years. Every TV set sold now has an
ATSC tuner. * Geez, I notice for all the facts and statistics I cite
in an attempt to have a reasonable discussion, you counter with what?
* No facts. * Just personal feelings, and the opinion of your buddy
the cable guy, that HD/ATSC is unproven stuff, heading for calamity. *
Now thats what I call hype.
Lordy Mercy! A conspiracy of one? Hype?? g
BTW, I'm not an industry empoyee, though I am an electrical engineer, so
perhaps I know a little more about technology than you or your cable
guy.
And, as an EE, I'm sure you and your employer(s) reap no benefits
whatsoever (direct or indirect) from the ATSC mandate. :-)
Perhaps as an EE, you have some idea of what a mess they made of NTSC
over the years?
And you think it will truly be different with ATSC?
That's it, I'm out of here. No further response will ensue.
****Puddin'
"Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens!" * -Friedrich
Schiller

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:33:55 -0400, (Charles Pisano) wrote:

The $ increase, suprised me since I haven't seen and increase in CRT's
in 20 years.

Relative to inflation, I think prices have been falling for many
years.

Your post (below) reminds me of the 3rd rock from the sun episode when
the aliens buy a dvd, a huge sound system and a big screen tv. And as
they are (sitting around) bragging about the quality , one alien's earth
GF reminds them they're watching 'Gremlins'...!! That line killed me.
And it was quite true. In most cases people have built an altar in
worship of 'what' exactly? I'd be afraid to see Bill O'Reilly's face in
any more detail than I already do..Or do I need to see Flava Flav smack
his bitch down in more detail?

And you are evidently less cynical than I, who haven't watched a
regular prime-time show since Hill St. Blues, know of O'Reilly but
have never / will never watch him or any of the shock-droids. Got
nooooooooooo idea who Flava might be. Haven't watched a US
presidential "address" since Jimmy Carter since I don't like to be
lied to, etc etc.

There remains kinks in the digital techonogy such as the blur I reffered
to in my OP. Delivery of so much resolution (data?) takes time and if
the players move too fast, that can eat up bandwith and slow down
delivery and cause a blur. At least that is my understanding of it.

Pert near describes some of what I see coming across my cable.

Kinda like when I scroll too fast on my puter? To me it's just not
worth it.

I'm finding numerous channels to be so obnoxious that I just won't
tune 'em. Bravo, Comedy, et al.

TCM is the exception. It's still "civilized" and un-offensive.

I'm slowly giving up on the "entertainment" industry (including what
they call "news") altogether.

I recetly purchased 3 of the 'old' style tv's for a new home. I was
assured on many fronts that the change would only affect OTA broadcast..

3 CRT's? Don't drop one on your foot when you move in: you may
never walk right again! :-)

Cheers,
Puddin'

CRT TVs

Group: alt.home.repair Date: Wed, Jun 27, 2007, 10:36pm (EDT+4) From:
(Puddin'*Man)
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:41:08 -0000, wrote:
On Jun 27, 9:49 am, Puddin' Man wrote:
I'd say I'm more aware of what's going on than you are. Faced with a
decision of buying a TV, I prefer to find out the facts, which are
readily available
Industry hype.
Look, there is plenty of info available today about HDTV from a variety
of resources, many of which are not connected to some evil industry
conspiracy. * * You obviously won't even look at it, yet you go
around telling people calamity is ahead.
Who posted opinionated stuff first? You or I?
You can stick you head
in the sand, while the rest of us move ahead.
and actually look at an HDTV compared to a regular one. The facts are,
ATSC broadcasting is up and running. The 85%+ who have cable or sat have
HD available. Network prime time is in HD. NYC even has HD livecam from
news helicopters. The first HD DVDs and players are appearing. All new
TVs sold in the US now have a built-in ATSC tuner. The prices for HDTVs
have dropped dramatically. And 16 million HDTVs will be sold this year.
I've seen 'em. In the store (a somewhat artificial environment), they
look better. But not -that- much better.
And do you know what you were looking at? * Just because it's an HDTV
doesn't mean the program that happened to be on at the moment was HD. In
stores, I've seen all kinds of material being shown and at times, it
wasn't HD at all. * It's gotten better in the last couple years, but
before that in many stores that I've seen it was pretty bad. But if you
have an HDTV with and HD source, and a regular TV next to it, the
difference is huge.
Granted a material difference.
I have no problem with your wanting your pretty pictures in highly
defined resolution. You will pay for what your get. I begrudge you
nothing in this regard.
Remember the "Vast Wasteland"? It still exists. Millions of viewers
lounge around every evening in front of the tube or son-of-tube. They
scarcely take notice of what's on the screen because they know it's
mostly drivel. ATSC/HD drivel is not materially superior to NTSC drivel.
Lord help po' me. I read books! :-) Part of me wants to pitch the
goddamn tube out the window.
'Tis the cost/benefit curve, as applied to the public at large, that you
fail to comprehend. Possibly because you're just not interested in what
effects others.
You make these sweeping statements with out elaboration.
You haven't exactly flooded the byte-waves with source-info
your-own-self.
The cost to
the public at large? * If you have 2 tv's and buy 2 ATSC tuners, you'd
be out about $50. * Is that so bad?
Suggest you Google "ATSC tuners" re price and availability. And who
wants an external box when they don't need one?
When the local or state govt
decides to buy open land or make a new park and your tax bill goes up
that much for something you personally never will use, do you get all
upset too?
Depends on lots of things.
And further, for the public at large, the fed govt is gonna get billions
when they sell the bandwith previously used by NTSC. That sounds like a
lot of money they can **** away instead of instead of taking it from
taxes.
They'll be cashing in on a public resource. It's an entirely different
topic, but I damned well don't like what they're doing with our money.
So, where exactly is this big cost/
benefit problem that I fail to comprehend.
It's something you've chosen not to contemplate.
You instead ask your buddy, the cable guy, who predicts that something
very bad is going to happen and the changeover to ASTC is gonna turn to
chaos, so you shouldn't do anything about your TV that needs replacement
* He's proably one of those cable guys we heard about who show up to
install cable and can't figure out how to correctly hook the new digital
box component video outputs up to the HDTV.
Hey, it's OK to get abusive. It's obvious that you lack info about both
my circumstances and my friend (who, 'tho retired, knows vastly more
about the industry than either of us).
Yeah, I tend to get that way when someone who dismisses readily
available info from a wide variety of sources and obviously knows less
than zero about HD, tries to tell me I'm some kind of mindless dummy
that's bought into a bunch of hype.
Let the record show that the "mindless dummy" phrase was of your own
devise. I implied only gullibility and/or personal interest. The net is
rife with both.
They pump up the hype in preparation for shoving the unproven technology
down the consumers throats. You seem to accept it all at face value. You
are their "Perfect Consumer". Or perhaps an industry employee. Eh?
What exactly is "unproven"? * About a third of US homes now has an
HDTV.
More sourceless claims. Even if true, ATSC is still an unproven tech. in
the homes of a majority of US folks. More than that, the relative
utility of ATSC vs NTSC given costs of each is very much unproven. It's
not enough to (correctly) say that it's a "much prettier picture".
ATSC broadcasting has been up for years. Every TV set sold now has an
ATSC tuner. * Geez, I notice for all the facts and statistics I cite
in an attempt to have a reasonable discussion, you counter with what?
* No facts. * Just personal feelings, and the opinion of your buddy
the cable guy, that HD/ATSC is unproven stuff, heading for calamity. *
Now thats what I call hype.
Lordy Mercy! A conspiracy of one? Hype?? g
BTW, I'm not an industry empoyee, though I am an electrical engineer, so
perhaps I know a little more about technology than you or your cable
guy.
And, as an EE, I'm sure you and your employer(s) reap no benefits
whatsoever (direct or indirect) from the ATSC mandate. :-)
Perhaps as an EE, you have some idea of what a mess they made of NTSC
over the years?
And you think it will truly be different with ATSC?
That's it, I'm out of here. No further response will ensue.
****Puddin'

"Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens!"
-Friedrich Schiller

"Puddin' Man" wrote in message


TCM is the exception. It's still "civilized" and un-offensive.

I'm slowly giving up on the "entertainment" industry (including what
they call "news") altogether.

History Channel, Discovery Channel, Learning Channel, Travel Channel makes
up 99% of my viewing. Modern Marvels is my favorite show.

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
. net...

"Puddin' Man" wrote in message


TCM is the exception. It's still "civilized" and un-offensive.

I'm slowly giving up on the "entertainment" industry (including what
they call "news") altogether.

History Channel, Discovery Channel, Learning Channel, Travel Channel makes
up 99% of my viewing. Modern Marvels is my favorite show.
Mostly agree. There are a few OTA network shows I still watch, but the list
gets shorter every year. I resent having to pay for a hundred garbage
channels on Satt (shopping, sports, religion) to get the dozen or so I
actually watch.

aem sends...

Mostly agree. There are a few OTA network shows I still watch, but the list
gets shorter every year. I resent having to pay for a hundred garbage
channels on Satt (shopping, sports, religion) to get the dozen or so I
actually watch.

well i agree, were not intoi sports, but have to buy ESPN in basic
tier.

although the shopping channels actually PAY for carriage, so they help
keep other channels price down

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 23:31:14 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:


"Puddin' Man" wrote in message


TCM is the exception. It's still "civilized" and un-offensive.

I'm slowly giving up on the "entertainment" industry (including what
they call "news") altogether.

History Channel, Discovery Channel, Learning Channel, Travel Channel makes
up 99% of my viewing. Modern Marvels is my favorite show.


I watch that last one a lot too.

BTW, they even covered an event that happened near here (this was on
one of the "Modern Marvels: Engineering Disasters" shows, I forget
which). The 1937 explosion at the New London Texas school, which was
caused by natural gas. This is supposedly the reason they add odorant
to gas.

I seldom watch any of the new shows (although I do watch "Smallville"
some).
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Never underestimate the power of stupid
people in large groups"

On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 01:45:04 GMT, "aemeijers"
wrote:


"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
.net...

"Puddin' Man" wrote in message


TCM is the exception. It's still "civilized" and un-offensive.

I'm slowly giving up on the "entertainment" industry (including what
they call "news") altogether.

History Channel, Discovery Channel, Learning Channel, Travel Channel makes
up 99% of my viewing. Modern Marvels is my favorite show.
Mostly agree. There are a few OTA network shows I still watch, but the list
gets shorter every year. I resent having to pay for a hundred garbage
channels on Satt (shopping, sports, religion) to get the dozen or so I
actually watch.


I agree with you there. I especially hate paying for TBN, a
24-hour-a-day commercial.

aem sends...

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Never underestimate the power of stupid
people in large groups"

On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 01:45:04 GMT, "aemeijers" wrote:


"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
.net...

"Puddin' Man" wrote in message


TCM is the exception. It's still "civilized" and un-offensive.

I'm slowly giving up on the "entertainment" industry (including what
they call "news") altogether.

History Channel, Discovery Channel, Learning Channel, Travel Channel makes
up 99% of my viewing. Modern Marvels is my favorite show.

You are in search of substance, and, hopefully are finding some.

Do you find much of mass-media "news" to be severely biased? If
so, to what extent do you find History to be biased? I cringe
to think of the bias to be found in most history books.

I'll take another look at Discovery , Learning. Maybe even
Travel ('tho I don't).

Mostly agree. There are a few OTA network shows I still watch, but the list
gets shorter every year. I resent having to pay for a hundred garbage
channels on Satt (shopping, sports, religion) to get the dozen or so I
actually watch.

This is a US national problem, and indicative of cable/dish implicit
collusion? Another reason I'm slowly giving up ...

Skoal,
Puddin'

"Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens!"
-Friedrich Schiller

"Puddin' Man" wrote in message
History Channel, Discovery Channel, Learning Channel, Travel Channel
makes
up 99% of my viewing. Modern Marvels is my favorite show.

You are in search of substance, and, hopefully are finding some.

Do you find much of mass-media "news" to be severely biased? If
so, to what extent do you find History to be biased? I cringe
to think of the bias to be found in most history books.

I honestly can't say I see much, if any, bias on the History Channel. Most
seems very factual and straight.



I'll take another look at Discovery , Learning. Maybe even
Travel ('tho I don't).

If you don't travel, consider doing so. It will really open your eyes at
how the rest of the world lives. Wish I was able to do it more and was able
to do it earlier in life. I've only been to five other countries and enjoyed
every minute of it.


Mostly agree. There are a few OTA network shows I still watch, but the
list
gets shorter every year. I resent having to pay for a hundred garbage
channels on Satt (shopping, sports, religion) to get the dozen or so I
actually watch.

This is a US national problem, and indicative of cable/dish implicit
collusion? Another reason I'm slowly giving up ...

I'd be willing to pay a little more per channel to just have the ones I'm
interested in. The list would be short. It is not impossible with the
technology available to offer an ala carte menu of stations.

Mark Lloyd wrote:


I agree with you there. I especially hate paying for TBN, a
24-hour-a-day commercial.

aem sends...

I was over a friends one day and a movie came on that we had both seen.
Every commercial break had *15* commercials (we counted). It was so
ridiculous that we couldn't even follow a movie we had seen. I don't
know hoe anyone could ever watch that channel without a PVR.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"Puddin' Man" wrote in message
History Channel, Discovery Channel, Learning Channel, Travel Channel
makes
up 99% of my viewing. Modern Marvels is my favorite show.
You are in search of substance, and, hopefully are finding some.

Do you find much of mass-media "news" to be severely biased? If
so, to what extent do you find History to be biased? I cringe
to think of the bias to be found in most history books.

I honestly can't say I see much, if any, bias on the History Channel. Most
seems very factual and straight.


I have seen a few shows where they start wandering into Algore polar
bears are falling into the ocean territory.



I'll take another look at Discovery , Learning. Maybe even
Travel ('tho I don't).

If you don't travel, consider doing so. It will really open your eyes at
how the rest of the world lives. Wish I was able to do it more and was able
to do it earlier in life. I've only been to five other countries and enjoyed
every minute of it.

Mostly agree. There are a few OTA network shows I still watch, but the
list
gets shorter every year. I resent having to pay for a hundred garbage
channels on Satt (shopping, sports, religion) to get the dozen or so I
actually watch.
This is a US national problem, and indicative of cable/dish implicit
collusion? Another reason I'm slowly giving up ...

I'd be willing to pay a little more per channel to just have the ones I'm
interested in. The list would be short. It is not impossible with the
technology available to offer an ala carte menu of stations.

On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 18:28:49 -0400, "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:


"Puddin' Man" wrote in message
History Channel, Discovery Channel, Learning Channel, Travel Channel
makes
up 99% of my viewing. Modern Marvels is my favorite show.

You are in search of substance, and, hopefully are finding some.

Do you find much of mass-media "news" to be severely biased? If
so, to what extent do you find History to be biased? I cringe
to think of the bias to be found in most history books.

I honestly can't say I see much, if any, bias on the History Channel. Most
seems very factual and straight.

I'll monitor the History lineup for a week or so, see what I
can find.


I'll take another look at Discovery , Learning. Maybe even
Travel ('tho I don't).

If you don't travel, consider doing so. It will really open your eyes at
how the rest of the world lives. Wish I was able to do it more and was able
to do it earlier in life. I've only been to five other countries and enjoyed
every minute of it.

Too late. Financially challenged and in poor health, here.


Mostly agree. There are a few OTA network shows I still watch, but the
list
gets shorter every year. I resent having to pay for a hundred garbage
channels on Satt (shopping, sports, religion) to get the dozen or so I
actually watch.

This is a US national problem, and indicative of cable/dish implicit
collusion? Another reason I'm slowly giving up ...

I'd be willing to pay a little more per channel to just have the ones I'm
interested in. The list would be short. It is not impossible with the
technology available to offer an ala carte menu of stations.

Don't let anyone tell you the technology's not been around for years.
The vendors just don't wanna let you pick-and-choose.

P

"Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens!"
-Friedrich Schiller