The end of analog TV begins today!

Some have pushed the cutoff date until June but today marks the beginning of
digital-only television.

The push back was a result of the government converter box coupon offer
RUNNING OUT OF COUPONS!!!

Fidiots!

Andy

Andy wrote:
> The end of analog TV begins today!
>
> Some have pushed the cutoff date until June but today marks the
> beginning of digital-only television.
>
> The push back was a result of the government converter box coupon
> offer RUNNING OUT OF COUPONS!!!
>
> Fidiots!

They are idiots. Beating us over the head about the date,
then changing it at the last second. How about just going
ahead with it, and let people apply for a rebate after the
fact? Figure it out!

nancy

Nancy Young said...

> Andy wrote:
>> The end of analog TV begins today!
>>
>> Some have pushed the cutoff date until June but today marks the
>> beginning of digital-only television.
>>
>> The push back was a result of the government converter box coupon
>> offer RUNNING OUT OF COUPONS!!!
>>
>> Fidiots!
>
> They are idiots. Beating us over the head about the date,
> then changing it at the last second. How about just going
> ahead with it, and let people apply for a rebate after the
> fact? Figure it out!
>
> nancy


nancy,

Right!

You always wake up so smart and beautiful?

[waves to Ron]

Best,

Andy

On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 07:56:27 -0500, Nancy Young wrote:

> Andy wrote:
>> The end of analog TV begins today!
>>
>> Some have pushed the cutoff date until June but today marks the
>> beginning of digital-only television.
>>
>> The push back was a result of the government converter box coupon
>> offer RUNNING OUT OF COUPONS!!!
>>
>> Fidiots!
>
> They are idiots. Beating us over the head about the date,
> then changing it at the last second. How about just going
> ahead with it, and let people apply for a rebate after the
> fact? Figure it out!
>
> nancy

well, for many people, coming up with twenty bucks is do-able, but sixty is
a lot harder.

your pal,
blake

blake murphy wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 07:56:27 -0500, Nancy Young wrote:

>> They are idiots. Beating us over the head about the date,
>> then changing it at the last second. How about just going
>> ahead with it, and let people apply for a rebate after the
>> fact? Figure it out!

> well, for many people, coming up with twenty bucks is do-able, but
> sixty is a lot harder.

Luckily we're just talking about tv, not food. People had
plenty of time if they were that concerned about it.

nancy

Nancy Young wrote:
>
> They are idiots. Beating us over the head about the date,
> then changing it at the last second. How about just going
> ahead with it, and let people apply for a rebate after the
> fact? Figure it out!

Could be worse. When color was introduced, they first went
with the CBS color system which allowed existing black-and-
white sets to be upgraded to color. Then later the same
year (1950), they reversed that decision and went with
the incompatible RCA color system, which is the system used
to the present day.

Mark Thorson wrote:

> Nancy Young wrote:
> >
> > They are idiots. Beating us over the head about the date,
> > then changing it at the last second. How about just going
> > ahead with it, and let people apply for a rebate after the
> > fact? Figure it out!
>
> Could be worse. When color was introduced, they first went
> with the CBS color system which allowed existing black-and-
> white sets to be upgraded to color. Then later the same
> year (1950), they reversed that decision and went with
> the incompatible RCA color system, which is the system used
> to the present day.


IIRC wasn't it the other way around? After the CBS color system was
announced "General" David Sarnoff, the head of RCA/NBC, went to Congress and
the media crying about the cost of everyone having to buy a new set in order
to receive color broadcasts if the CBS standard was adopted.. Sarnoff
touted his RCA "compatible color" system (which was somewhat inferior to the
CBS system, despite ithe CBS color having some mechanical parts IIRC and
thus not fully "electronic"), the powers - that - be reversed their ruling,
and the RCA system was it...color TV was then introduced in late 1954 (a set
cost a thousand bux, about $7500.00 in 2009 dollars - and very little color
programming). RCA for years after pretty much had the monopoly on the
nanufacture of color CRT's - if a manufacturer wanted to produce a color set
they had to go to RCA to procure the tube. That crafty Sarnoff...

I'll check the old TV history sites to corroborate...


--
Best
Greg

Gregory Morrow wrote:
>
> Mark Thorson wrote:
>
> > Nancy Young wrote:
> > >
> > > They are idiots. Beating us over the head about the date,
> > > then changing it at the last second. How about just going
> > > ahead with it, and let people apply for a rebate after the
> > > fact? Figure it out!
> >
> > Could be worse. When color was introduced, they first went
> > with the CBS color system which allowed existing black-and-
> > white sets to be upgraded to color. Then later the same
> > year (1950), they reversed that decision and went with
> > the incompatible RCA color system, which is the system used
> > to the present day.
>
> IIRC wasn't it the other way around? After the CBS color system was
> announced "General" David Sarnoff, the head of RCA/NBC, went to Congress and
> the media crying about the cost of everyone having to buy a new set in order
> to receive color broadcasts if the CBS standard was adopted.. Sarnoff

No, CBS color would retrofit the old sets with
a color wheel. RCA color would require sets
with color picture tubes to receive color.

> touted his RCA "compatible color" system (which was somewhat inferior to the
> CBS system, despite ithe CBS color having some mechanical parts IIRC and
> thus not fully "electronic"), the powers - that - be reversed their ruling,
> and the RCA system was it...color TV was then introduced in late 1954 (a set

RCA color was vastly superior. CBS used
"frame sequential" color, in which each
successive frame was a different color.
This produced a distracting artifact,
in which moving objects would leave behind
a multicolor trail of red, greed, and blue
afterimages.

Mark Thorson wrote:

> Gregory Morrow wrote:
> >
> > Mark Thorson wrote:
> >
> > > Nancy Young wrote:
> > > >
> > > > They are idiots. Beating us over the head about the date,
> > > > then changing it at the last second. How about just going
> > > > ahead with it, and let people apply for a rebate after the
> > > > fact? Figure it out!
> > >
> > > Could be worse. When color was introduced, they first went
> > > with the CBS color system which allowed existing black-and-
> > > white sets to be upgraded to color. Then later the same
> > > year (1950), they reversed that decision and went with
> > > the incompatible RCA color system, which is the system used
> > > to the present day.
> >
> > IIRC wasn't it the other way around? After the CBS color system was
> > announced "General" David Sarnoff, the head of RCA/NBC, went to Congress
and
> > the media crying about the cost of everyone having to buy a new set in
order
> > to receive color broadcasts if the CBS standard was adopted.. Sarnoff
>
> No, CBS color would retrofit the old sets with
> a color wheel. RCA color would require sets
> with color picture tubes to receive color.


Yeah, that's it, the "color wheel" thing...


> > touted his RCA "compatible color" system (which was somewhat inferior to
the
> > CBS system, despite ithe CBS color having some mechanical parts IIRC and
> > thus not fully "electronic"), the powers - that - be reversed their
ruling,
> > and the RCA system was it...color TV was then introduced in late 1954 (a
set
>
> RCA color was vastly superior. CBS used
> "frame sequential" color, in which each
> successive frame was a different color.
> This produced a distracting artifact,
> in which moving objects would leave behind
> a multicolor trail of red, greed, and blue
> afterimages.


One of the reasons why color TV really didn't take off for a decade or so.
When you bought an early color TV, the joke was that you had to buy a
service technician along with it to service the monster...

The Europeans learned from our clumsy mistakes and developed the superior
PAL and SECAM color tv systems when they went color in the late 60's...


--
Best
Greg

In article > , ty55u453
@xxxx9x.ru says...
>
> Mark Thorson wrote:
>
> > Nancy Young wrote:
> > >
> > > They are idiots. Beating us over the head about the date,
> > > then changing it at the last second. How about just going
> > > ahead with it, and let people apply for a rebate after the
> > > fact? Figure it out!
> >
> > Could be worse. When color was introduced, they first went
> > with the CBS color system which allowed existing black-and-
> > white sets to be upgraded to color. Then later the same
> > year (1950), they reversed that decision and went with
> > the incompatible RCA color system, which is the system used
> > to the present day.
>
>
> IIRC wasn't it the other way around? After the CBS color system was
> announced "General" David Sarnoff, the head of RCA/NBC, went to Congress and
> the media crying about the cost of everyone having to buy a new set in order
> to receive color broadcasts if the CBS standard was adopted.. Sarnoff
> touted his RCA "compatible color" system (which was somewhat inferior to the
> CBS system, despite ithe CBS color having some mechanical parts IIRC and
> thus not fully "electronic"), the powers - that - be reversed their ruling,
> and the RCA system was it...color TV was then introduced in late 1954 (a set
> cost a thousand bux, about $7500.00 in 2009 dollars - and very little color
> programming). RCA for years after pretty much had the monopoly on the
> nanufacture of color CRT's - if a manufacturer wanted to produce a color set
> they had to go to RCA to procure the tube. That crafty Sarnoff...
>
> I'll check the old TV history sites to corroborate...

Sarnoff was a real piece of work. He also screwed over Howard Armstrong,
probably one of the best minds when it came to RF engineering.

Armstrong is the inventor of the regerative receiver, the
superheterodyne receiver, and most lasting FM.

Then of course there's De Forest, the man who invented the Audion tube
except he had no idea what the capabilities of that tube might really
be, at least beyond basic RF detection and amplification.

It took Armstrong to understand the Audion well enough to figure out
regeneration and the fact that if you overdrove an Audion tube it would
modulate in the RF spectrum.

Of course De Forest didn't like this and litigated to overturn
Armstrongs patents.

At the same time Sarnoff screwed Armstrong too. He lead Armstrong to
develop FM then shitcanned it for television.

Armstrong committed suicide because of the extended lawsuits with De
Forest and the bullshit from Sarnoff.

On Sun 22 Feb 2009 12:45:31a, T told us...

> In article > , ty55u453
> @xxxx9x.ru says...
>>
>> Mark Thorson wrote:
>>
>> > Nancy Young wrote:
>> > >
>> > > They are idiots. Beating us over the head about the date, then
>> > > changing it at the last second. How about just going ahead with
>> > > it, and let people apply for a rebate after the fact? Figure it
>> > > out!
>> >
>> > Could be worse. When color was introduced, they first went
>> > with the CBS color system which allowed existing black-and-
>> > white sets to be upgraded to color. Then later the same
>> > year (1950), they reversed that decision and went with
>> > the incompatible RCA color system, which is the system used to the
>> > present day.
>>
>>
>> IIRC wasn't it the other way around? After the CBS color system was
>> announced "General" David Sarnoff, the head of RCA/NBC, went to
>> Congress and the media crying about the cost of everyone having to buy
>> a new set in order to receive color broadcasts if the CBS standard was
>> adopted.. Sarnoff touted his RCA "compatible color" system (which was
>> somewhat inferior to the CBS system, despite ithe CBS color having some
>> mechanical parts IIRC and thus not fully "electronic"), the powers -
>> that - be reversed their ruling, and the RCA system was it...color TV
>> was then introduced in late 1954 (a set cost a thousand bux, about
>> $7500.00 in 2009 dollars - and very little color programming). RCA for
>> years after pretty much had the monopoly on the nanufacture of color
>> CRT's - if a manufacturer wanted to produce a color set they had to go
>> to RCA to procure the tube. That crafty Sarnoff...
>>
>> I'll check the old TV history sites to corroborate...
>
> Sarnoff was a real piece of work. He also screwed over Howard Armstrong,
> probably one of the best minds when it came to RF engineering.
>
> Armstrong is the inventor of the regerative receiver, the
> superheterodyne receiver, and most lasting FM.
>
> Then of course there's De Forest, the man who invented the Audion tube
> except he had no idea what the capabilities of that tube might really
> be, at least beyond basic RF detection and amplification.
>
> It took Armstrong to understand the Audion well enough to figure out
> regeneration and the fact that if you overdrove an Audion tube it would
> modulate in the RF spectrum.
>
> Of course De Forest didn't like this and litigated to overturn
> Armstrongs patents.
>
> At the same time Sarnoff screwed Armstrong too. He lead Armstrong to
> develop FM then shitcanned it for television.
>
> Armstrong committed suicide because of the extended lawsuits with De
> Forest and the bullshit from Sarnoff.

I well remember the CBS system, as my dad quickly bought the conversion
"kit" to install on our 20" Freed-Eiseman television that had a CBS
chassis, and was already outfitted with the octal socket that the converter
box plugged into. The entire aparatus was a monstrosity. There was a
converter box that could be located on or near the television, but every
set required a motorized colorwheel that was twice the diameter of the
actual picture tube. We had this 40" wheel encased in wood that sat atop
the television, the front of which hung down over the front of the picture
tube. Another downside was that the actual picture size was reduced by
this thing. It's no wonder that the RCA system was adopted.

--
Wayne Boatwright

"One man's meat is another man's poison"
- Oswald Dykes, English writer, 1709.

Andy wrote:
> The end of analog TV begins today!
>
> Some have pushed the cutoff date until June but today marks the beginning of
> digital-only television.
>
> The push back was a result of the government converter box coupon offer
> RUNNING OUT OF COUPONS!!!
>
> Fidiots!
>
> Andy
>
>

No, the government has plenty of coupons, they just do have the money to
pay for them.

George said...

> Andy wrote:
>> The end of analog TV begins today!
>>
>> Some have pushed the cutoff date until June but today marks the
>> beginning of digital-only television.
>>
>> The push back was a result of the government converter box coupon offer
>> RUNNING OUT OF COUPONS!!!
>>
>> Fidiots!
>>
>> Andy
>>
>>
>
> No, the government has plenty of coupons, they just do have the money to
> pay for them.


George,

Well shouldn't the federal government have built that into all the multi-
billion dollar financial recovery acts?

Fidiots!

I'm just about embarrassed to be an American nowadays!

Best,

Andy

Andy wrote:
> George said...
>
>> Andy wrote:
>>> The end of analog TV begins today!
>>>
>>> Some have pushed the cutoff date until June but today marks the
>>> beginning of digital-only television.
>>>
>>> The push back was a result of the government converter box coupon offer
>>> RUNNING OUT OF COUPONS!!!
>>>
>>> Fidiots!
>>>
>>> Andy
>>>
>>>
>> No, the government has plenty of coupons, they just do have the money to
>> pay for them.
>
>
> George,
>
> Well shouldn't the federal government have built that into all the multi-
> billion dollar financial recovery acts?
>
> Fidiots!
>
> I'm just about embarrassed to be an American nowadays!
>
> Best,
>
> Andy
>
Also, I gather they were testing with rooftop antennas--and not
all folks have those!

--
Jean B.

George wrote:

> Andy wrote:
>> The end of analog TV begins today!
>>
>> Some have pushed the cutoff date until June but today marks the
>> beginning of digital-only television.
>>
>> The push back was a result of the government converter box coupon
>> offer RUNNING OUT OF COUPONS!!!

> No, the government has plenty of coupons, they just do have the money
> to pay for them.

Obviously, otherwise they'd just print more. Still, they could
find a solution if they wanted to.

nancy

On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 10:10:29 -0500, "Nancy Young"
> wrote:

>Obviously, otherwise they'd just print more. Still, they could
>find a solution if they wanted to.

like print by computer? If BBB can do it, why not the feds?


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

In article >,
sf > wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 10:10:29 -0500, "Nancy Young"
> > wrote:
>
> >Obviously, otherwise they'd just print more. Still, they could
> >find a solution if they wanted to.
>
> like print by computer? If BBB can do it, why not the feds?

Are they made out of paper? I haven't seen them, but I thought I read
that they were like credit cards, not paper coupons.

Here's info:

https://www.dtv2009.gov/AboutProgram.aspx

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:47:19 -0800, Dan Abel > wrote:

>Are they made out of paper? I haven't seen them, but I thought I read
>that they were like credit cards, not paper coupons.

Well, you know more than I do. But now the question arises about
*why* they are credit card style and not paper.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

Andy wrote:

> The end of analog TV begins today!
>
> Some have pushed the cutoff date until June but today marks the
> beginning of digital-only television.
>
> The push back was a result of the government converter box coupon
> offer RUNNING OUT OF COUPONS!!!
>
> Fidiots!

Here too they have issued the friggin' coupons, so that people could buy a
government converter box... built by an operation owned by the brother of
the prime minister. Easy, no? The bums...
--
Vilco
Mai guardare Trailer park Boys senza
qualcosa da bere a portata di mano

Andy wrote:
>
> The end of analog TV begins today!
>
> Some have pushed the cutoff date until June but today marks the beginning of
> digital-only television.
>
> The push back was a result of the government converter box coupon offer
> RUNNING OUT OF COUPONS!!!
>
> Fidiots!
>
> Andy

It began well before today. The date was always the date that analog had
to be off, not the first day analog could be turned off. One of the
local stations here turned the analog off permanently a couple weeks
ago.

Pete C. said...

>
> Andy wrote:
>>
>> The end of analog TV begins today!
>>
>> Some have pushed the cutoff date until June but today marks the
>> beginning of digital-only television.
>>
>> The push back was a result of the government converter box coupon offer
>> RUNNING OUT OF COUPONS!!!
>>
>> Fidiots!
>>
>> Andy
>
> It began well before today. The date was always the date that analog had
> to be off, not the first day analog could be turned off. One of the
> local stations here turned the analog off permanently a couple weeks
> ago.


Pete C.,

The Comcast folks gave me a free one year digital cable subscription with
the cable box.

They also gave me 4 months of STARZ (Pay channels).

I canceled STARZ after the 4 months but I still get those channels. I'll
wait and see next month's bill

There ARE a few decent digital cable TV stations, National Geographic and
the Sci-Fi channel and a few movie channels.

I doubt I'll renew if they start billing me.

If I had an option to pay, say, 25¢ per channel I wanted to watch, I'd go
that route.

Best,

Andy

Pete C. said...

> It began well before today. The date was always the date that analog had
> to be off, not the first day analog could be turned off. One of the
> local stations here turned the analog off permanently a couple weeks
> ago.


Pete C.,

My house had a roof antenna with a rotation control box in the attic for when
necessary.

I DID install true cable TV cables.

Best,

Andy

On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 10:11:26 -0600, Andy > wrote:

>Pete C. said...
>
>> It began well before today. The date was always the date that analog had
>> to be off, not the first day analog could be turned off. One of the
>> local stations here turned the analog off permanently a couple weeks
>> ago.
>
>
>Pete C.,
>
>My house had a roof antenna with a rotation control box in the attic for when
>necessary.
>
>I DID install true cable TV cables.
>
We installed cable as soon as it came to our area because the
topography caused "ghost" images on some channels. Now this dumb
digital thing comes along and frankly I can't tell the difference.
Hubby claims he can. I can tell when whatever it is they film on is
cheap, I can tell the difference between tvs... but I can't tell the
difference between a high quality analog image (via cable) and a
digital image on our newest tvs.



--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

sf wrote:
>
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 10:11:26 -0600, Andy > wrote:
>
> >Pete C. said...
> >
> >> It began well before today. The date was always the date that analog had
> >> to be off, not the first day analog could be turned off. One of the
> >> local stations here turned the analog off permanently a couple weeks
> >> ago.
> >
> >
> >Pete C.,
> >
> >My house had a roof antenna with a rotation control box in the attic for when
> >necessary.
> >
> >I DID install true cable TV cables.
> >
> We installed cable as soon as it came to our area because the
> topography caused "ghost" images on some channels. Now this dumb
> digital thing comes along and frankly I can't tell the difference.
> Hubby claims he can. I can tell when whatever it is they film on is
> cheap, I can tell the difference between tvs... but I can't tell the
> difference between a high quality analog image (via cable) and a
> digital image on our newest tvs.

You're comparing the wrong things, you need to compare an analog
broadcast transmission with a digital broadcast transmission. At any
rate, the ghosts, snow, signal fade, etc. of the old analog
transmissions do not exist with the new digital ones. Digital of course
has it's own new issues, but at any rate you should take a look at OTA
digital and assess whether the $50+/month for cable is a reasonable
expense. I canceled cable TV last year and haven't missed it. Broadcast
TV is 99.99% crap and cable TV is 99.95% crap, in either case you are
better off actually getting off the couch and doing something.

On 2009-02-17, Pete C. > wrote:

> expense. I canceled cable TV last year and haven't missed it. Broadcast
> TV is 99.99% crap and cable TV is 99.95% crap, in either case you are
> better off actually getting off the couch and doing something.

Amen, Pete.

I'll admit to being a child of the tv age. I am drawn to it like a moth to
a flame. I even sometimes wonder if it's not latent instinct, the
electronic equivelent of the primordial campfire our cave ancestors once
huddled around. Regardless, I can, and have, gone without tv for years at a
time. It IS a different life, of that there can be no doubt.

I don't think I'd miss it too much. The current content is soooo bad! I
went back to tv a few yrs back cuz I got a great deal on TCM and am an old
movie buff. Now that I've seen most of them about 5 times and contemporary
movies totally suck, I see no further use for tv. Worse, commercials have
creeped up to the point where they are at least 1/3 of total content, or
about 10min out of every 30mins of programming. It's become insufferable.
It's unbelievable people pay $40-70 mo for this crap.

nb

On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 11:08:53 -0600, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
>sf wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 10:11:26 -0600, Andy > wrote:
>>
>> >Pete C. said...
>> >
>> >> It began well before today. The date was always the date that analog had
>> >> to be off, not the first day analog could be turned off. One of the
>> >> local stations here turned the analog off permanently a couple weeks
>> >> ago.
>> >
>> >
>> >Pete C.,
>> >
>> >My house had a roof antenna with a rotation control box in the attic for when
>> >necessary.
>> >
>> >I DID install true cable TV cables.
>> >
>> We installed cable as soon as it came to our area because the
>> topography caused "ghost" images on some channels. Now this dumb
>> digital thing comes along and frankly I can't tell the difference.
>> Hubby claims he can. I can tell when whatever it is they film on is
>> cheap, I can tell the difference between tvs... but I can't tell the
>> difference between a high quality analog image (via cable) and a
>> digital image on our newest tvs.
>
>You're comparing the wrong things,

I'm comparing the things I notice.

>you need to compare an analog
>broadcast transmission with a digital broadcast transmission.

Which *was* possible with channels like HGTV on cable

>At any
>rate, the ghosts, snow, signal fade, etc. of the old analog
>transmissions do not exist with the new digital ones.

I had none of those problems with cable analog, only analog over the
airwaves.

>Digital of course
>has it's own new issues, but at any rate you should take a look at OTA
>digital and assess whether the $50+/month for cable is a reasonable
>expense. I canceled cable TV last year and haven't missed it. Broadcast
>TV is 99.99% crap and cable TV is 99.95% crap, in either case you are
>better off actually getting off the couch and doing something.

Point taken, but I can afford cable. We cut costs in other areas. We
have no landline and two of us share one car.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

"sf" wrote:
> Andy wrote:
>>Pete C. said...
>>
>>> It began well before today. The date was always the date that analog had
>>> to be off, not the first day analog could be turned off. One of the
>>> local stations here turned the analog off permanently a couple weeks
>>> ago.
>>
>>My house had a roof antenna with a rotation control box in the attic for
>>when
>>necessary.
>>
>>I DID install true cable TV cables.

Coax will [sometimes] shield some minute amount of interference occuring
inside your house (like from vaccuum and fridge motors) but there are too
many transmission variables to make that worthwhile... there's really no
point to switching flat TV anntena wire to coax.

> We installed cable as soon as it came to our area because the
> topography caused "ghost" images on some channels.

With a roof antenna (glorified rabit ears) all you got were *some* channels.

Now this dumb
> digital thing comes along and frankly I can't tell the difference.
> Hubby claims he can. I can tell when whatever it is they film on is
> cheap, I can tell the difference between tvs... but I can't tell the
> difference between a high quality analog image (via cable) and a
> digital image on our newest tvs.

Cable isn't transmitting analog, they haven't for a few years, that's why
you no longer need the "box" for basic cable.

What do you consider "newest tvs"? With TVs more than ten years old there
isn't much picture quality difference between analog and digital. But
there's a temendous difference in picture quality between old style tube
analog TVs and digital with newer flat screeen tube and especially the new
flat panel TVs, and there's no comparison to HD. Picture quality is also
diminished in the transmission of taped/reruns, especially the older reruns
with any TV/transmission. Once you've watched live broadcast on the late
model flat panel TVs for a while, especially in HD, you won't want to go
back. I don't think anyone who's been using the new flat panel PC monitors
would want to go back to CRT either. Of course if all you watch are
cartoons it makes no difference.

Btw, anyone with cable, make sure they install the amplifier where the cable
enters your house, and that the tech tests the entering signal (and at each
TV) and adjusts/trims the amplifier accordingly... otherwise your viewing
pleasure will be greatly diminished. And since the amplifier is energized
24/7 with the passing of time it becomes weak and can even burn out, so it's
a good idea to complain like every two years that your picture is lousy,
they will swap the amplifier to a new one... it's a small metal box the size
of a pack of cigarettes with a small transformer that plugs into an
electrical outlet, with a pilot light (if the pilot light is out it's not
operating at all), if you can't find one inside near where the cable enters
then the installer was too lazy, forgot, didn't have one on the truck, or
there was no electrical outlet handy nearby... my cable enters the basement,
there's an electical outlet just three feet away. I learned about the
amplifier when I bought my new flat panel TV (didn't know about the
amplifier previously), that's when the tech checked the signal at the new TV
and when he went into the basement is when it was discovered that the
amplifier was burned out... what a major improvement in all the TVs (I have
four) when he installed the new amplifier.

brooklyn1 wrote:

> Cable isn't transmitting analog, they haven't for a few years, that's why
> you no longer need the "box" for basic cable.

Stick to something you know anything about.

>.. it's a small metal box the size
> of a pack of cigarettes with a small transformer that plugs into an
> electrical outlet, with a pilot light (if the pilot light is out it's not
> operating at all), if you can't find one inside near where the cable enters
> then the installer was too lazy, forgot, didn't have one on the truck, or
> there was no electrical outlet handy nearby...

And again...

-sw

On 2009-02-17, Andy > wrote:

> Some have pushed the cutoff date until June but today marks the beginning of
> digital-only television.

A lot of this only applies to urban residents. If you are rural, reeeally
rural, theres a good chance it's a non-issue. We have two options for tv.
Satellite or antenna. Tha satellite is easy, there will be no noticable
change. The antenna access is a bit different. Turns out we're soooo
rural, antenna tv is available via a "translator" from a really small
specialized service with a transmitter up on one of the mountain peaks. Our
translator station may not be required to transmit in digital, so we may see
no change at all. Also, a lot of small rural stations, translator or not,
may be exempt and are not rquired to change to digital. You may want to
just wait and see.

nb

In article >, Andy > wrote:

> The end of analog TV begins today!
>
> Some have pushed the cutoff date until June but today marks the beginning of
> digital-only television.
>
> The push back was a result of the government converter box coupon offer
> RUNNING OUT OF COUPONS!!!
>
> Fidiots!

You shouldn't call your friends "fidiots". Many here got the coupons.
They have satellite or cable, so have no use for them, but they were
free, so why not? Some of those people went ahead and bought the boxes,
because the coupons were going to expire. Those boxes will sit in their
basement or garage until they have aged sufficiently, at which point
they will be offered at the next garage sale for pennies on the dollar.
They only cost US$10 after the coupon, so why not? Better safe than
sorry. They've got 'em if they need 'em.

In the meantime, those who actually needed the boxes waited until the
coupons were all gone. Now, they're stuck, and the US government wasn't
willing to cut them off. So, they're getting another chance. After the
coupons expire for those folks who didn't actually need them, then new
coupons will be issued. For those who want to wait a few months, note
that there is a cutoff, and those who get their requests in first get
coupons (once the unused coupons expire):

https://www.dtv2009.gov/AboutProgram.aspx

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Dan Abel said...

> In article >, Andy > wrote:
>
>> The end of analog TV begins today!
>>
>> Some have pushed the cutoff date until June but today marks the
>> beginning of digital-only television.
>>
>> The push back was a result of the government converter box coupon offer
>> RUNNING OUT OF COUPONS!!!
>>
>> Fidiots!
>
> You shouldn't call your friends "fidiots". Many here got the coupons.
> They have satellite or cable, so have no use for them, but they were
> free, so why not? Some of those people went ahead and bought the boxes,
> because the coupons were going to expire. Those boxes will sit in their
> basement or garage until they have aged sufficiently, at which point
> they will be offered at the next garage sale for pennies on the dollar.
> They only cost US$10 after the coupon, so why not? Better safe than
> sorry. They've got 'em if they need 'em.
>
> In the meantime, those who actually needed the boxes waited until the
> coupons were all gone. Now, they're stuck, and the US government wasn't
> willing to cut them off. So, they're getting another chance. After the
> coupons expire for those folks who didn't actually need them, then new
> coupons will be issued. For those who want to wait a few months, note
> that there is a cutoff, and those who get their requests in first get
> coupons (once the unused coupons expire):
>
> https://www.dtv2009.gov/AboutProgram.aspx


Dan,

Wait a second!

I don't recall the coupon being a 100% deal.

I thought you got a 40% ($40?) discount but NOT a free converter.

Andy

"Andy" > wrote in message
> Dan,
>
> Wait a second!
>
> I don't recall the coupon being a 100% deal.
>
> I thought you got a 40% ($40?) discount but NOT a free converter.
>
> Andy
>

You get $40 towards a converter. They start at about $40 and go up from
there.

Edwin Pawlowski said...

>
> "Andy" > wrote in message
>> Dan,
>>
>> Wait a second!
>>
>> I don't recall the coupon being a 100% deal.
>>
>> I thought you got a 40% ($40?) discount but NOT a free converter.
>>
>> Andy
>>
>
> You get $40 towards a converter. They start at about $40 and go up from
> there.


Ed,

Right. A 100% deal would negate the need to provide coupons!

What the top-of-the-line box benefit is, I can't begin to guess.

In all actuality, I can't believe so many people are left that don't
already have cable TV.

But then again, I wasn't born in the 19th century. That might've been nice,
come to think of it!

Best,

Andy

In article >, Andy > wrote:


> What the top-of-the-line box benefit is, I can't begin to guess.

Since I don't need one, I've forgotten, but it seemed significant when I
read it. For somebody buying a box for that extra tv in the basement,
or garage, or lakeside cottage, maybe the cheapie will do. I would look
hard at the features if it was going to be my main source of tv.

> In all actuality, I can't believe so many people are left that don't
> already have cable TV.

I don't remember the exact estimated numbers, but it's in the millions.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

In article >, says...
>
> Edwin Pawlowski said...
>
> >
> > "Andy" > wrote in message
> >> Dan,
> >>
> >> Wait a second!
> >>
> >> I don't recall the coupon being a 100% deal.
> >>
> >> I thought you got a 40% ($40?) discount but NOT a free converter.
> >>
> >> Andy
> >>
> >
> > You get $40 towards a converter. They start at about $40 and go up from
> > there.
>
>
> Ed,
>
> Right. A 100% deal would negate the need to provide coupons!
>
> What the top-of-the-line box benefit is, I can't begin to guess.
>
> In all actuality, I can't believe so many people are left that don't
> already have cable TV.
>
> But then again, I wasn't born in the 19th century. That might've been nice,
> come to think of it!
>
> Best,
>
> Andy

I spent $39 and got a Pinnacle HD Pro USB Stick. With the included whip
antenna I get the three major networks in the area (NBC, CBS and ABC) as
well as our local PBS station.

I hooked about 8' of copper wire to the thing. I pull in about 20
stations now.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

> You get $40 towards a converter. They start at about $40 and go up from
> there.

They've been selling 2 $40 converters at my grocery store of all places
for several months.

-sw

In article >, Andy > wrote:

> Dan Abel said...
>
> > In article >, Andy > wrote:
> >
> >> The end of analog TV begins today!
> >>
> >> Some have pushed the cutoff date until June but today marks the
> >> beginning of digital-only television.
> >>
> >> The push back was a result of the government converter box coupon offer
> >> RUNNING OUT OF COUPONS!!!
> >>
> >> Fidiots!
> >
> > You shouldn't call your friends "fidiots". Many here got the coupons.
> > They have satellite or cable, so have no use for them, but they were
> > free, so why not? Some of those people went ahead and bought the boxes,
> > because the coupons were going to expire. Those boxes will sit in their
> > basement or garage until they have aged sufficiently, at which point
> > they will be offered at the next garage sale for pennies on the dollar.
> > They only cost US$10 after the coupon, so why not? Better safe than
> > sorry. They've got 'em if they need 'em.

> > https://www.dtv2009.gov/AboutProgram.aspx

> Wait a second!
>
> I don't recall the coupon being a 100% deal.
>
> I thought you got a 40% ($40?) discount but NOT a free converter.

You can read what I wrote above, or you can read the web site I cited.

The *coupons* are free. They are good for a maximum of US$40 off the
price of a box. You can get one or two coupons. I chose zero. The
cheapest box I've seen is roughly US$50. You can get more features if
you spend more money.

Since I wrote the above, I read the morning newspaper. There are 3
million people on the waiting list right now. I think you only have a
limited time to apply. No more coupons will be issued until unused
coupons expire. They are only good for 90 days.

I have a satellite dish, and have had it for many years.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

"Dan Abel" > wrote in message
> You shouldn't call your friends "fidiots". Many here got the coupons.
> They have satellite or cable, so have no use for them, but they were
> free, so why not? Some of those people went ahead and bought the boxes,
> because the coupons were going to expire. Those boxes will sit in their
> basement or garage until they have aged sufficiently, at which point
> they will be offered at the next garage sale for pennies on the dollar.
> They only cost US$10 after the coupon, so why not? Better safe than
> sorry. They've got 'em if they need 'em.

Those people are wasting our tax dollars. Nothing is "free" and they are
sitting on the unused coupons that others can use and worse, sitting on a
converter box that will never be used.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>
> "Dan Abel" > wrote in message
> > You shouldn't call your friends "fidiots". Many here got the coupons.
> > They have satellite or cable, so have no use for them, but they were
> > free, so why not? Some of those people went ahead and bought the boxes,
> > because the coupons were going to expire. Those boxes will sit in their
> > basement or garage until they have aged sufficiently, at which point
> > they will be offered at the next garage sale for pennies on the dollar.
> > They only cost US$10 after the coupon, so why not? Better safe than
> > sorry. They've got 'em if they need 'em.
>
> Those people are wasting our tax dollars. Nothing is "free" and they are
> sitting on the unused coupons that others can use and worse, sitting on a
> converter box that will never be used.

I got my two converters when I had cable TV. My camper still had/has an
antenna so I needed one there, and I have since dropped cable TV as
well. Some of those people you noted "wasting" the coupon dollars will
eventually see the OTA digital somewhere and decide to drop their cable
/ satellite as well.

Dan Abel > wrote in
:



http://www.news.com.au/technology/st...014239,00.html


http://www.news.com.au/technology/st...014239,00.html


It sounds like what we here would call "a shamozzle".



--
Peter Lucas
Brisbane
Australia

"Life is not like a box of chocolates... it's more like a jar of jalapenos.
What you do today... might burn your ass tomorrow."