Are your televisions prepared for 2009?

[bicker]

This seems to be a good time for a bump to this thread.

February's coming! Are you prepared?

 

[1rockinmamato2]

I'm amazed at how many people are buying new TVs because of this when they really don't need to.

 

[Micca]

I think for some people it's an *excuse" to get a new tv.

 

[bicker]

And there is a very significant difference between watching a digital channel on an old analog set and watching it on an HDTV.

 

[LisaR]

We have an old tv and very basic cable (channels 2 -20 only). We do NOT have a cable box.

I have talked to our cable company at least three times over the past year and one technician that was out to repair our internet and have been told that we are all set. We do not need a box and our old TV is just fine. They said as long as we have cable, we are all set. Yet, I keep reading on the internet that we need a box in our house.

 

[CourtasanSatine]

I've been looking at a size upgrade for ages so should I wait for the tv's to go on sale now? (Dish Network in terms of hookup, just hating a tiny tv)

 

[Metro West]

I already have a digital cable box so I'm ready to go!

 

[bicker]

We do not need a box and our old TV is just fine. They said as long as we have cable, we are all set. Yet, I keep reading on the internet that we need a box in our house.

And, of course, for now, you are okay. However, things can change, and may change. One of the biggest drivers in the industry right now is HD channels. How many HD channels does your cable company offer now? If the number is less than 30, there's going to be a big change coming, we already have about 35, and there are another couple of dozen coming this year. Most cable systems are already "full". The cable company's only options are:

1) Fall behind in the HD wars, and end up losing the high-spending HD fans;
2) Spend tens of millions of dollars putting in place expensive SDV systems; or
3) Move more and more channels from analog cable (which your old television can tune them in) to digital cable (where they take up 1/10th the amount of bandwidth, but your old television cannot tune them in without a cable box).

While #2 is a possibility, #3 is much more likely.

 

[bicker]

Interesting and somewhat annoying article this week on MSNBC:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24073432

The article makes it clear that with the over-the-air transition to digital coming next year, many (though not all) cable companies are also going to be transitioning to all-digital.

The annoying part of the articles is that through most of it, they support King's assertion that the government did this to him, and that he had no choice. That's bull... the government gave him a choice, and he chose to go all-digital. That is finally clarified at the end of the article, "Nothing in the rules would prevent operators from continuing to offer both analog and digital signals, however."

What is most notable in the article, though, is this:

Brian Dietz, spokesman for the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, said his organization interprets the rules to mean cable companies are prevented from recovering costs stemming from the head-end down-conversion, not the costs of set-top boxes required by the all-digital option.

Whether the cable company could charge for set-top boxes needed to convert their all-digital signals to analog through 2012 was something that wasn't clear up until now. This makes it clear: Unless and until someone sues and wins, this is effectively the law of the land. If your cable company goes all-digital, they can charge you for the necessary converter boxes needed for you to continue to receive analog signals on your analog televisions.

 

[lsyorke]

I think for some people it's an *excuse" to get a new tv.

You mean I didn't have to go out and get that 47 inch LCD/HD?? Oops....my bad!

 

[Mickeyluver37]

I know this poll is a little old, but I'm surprised at the results. I thought my grandparents were the only ones left on Earth without cable. Just from reading a few posts though, it seems as though a lot of people misunderstood what they needed to do to be "ready."

OT, but anyone else have Verizon FIOS? It's a "Set Top Box" not a "cable box." We still call it cable.

 

[bicker]

Arguably, FiOS still qualifies as "cable"... it's just fiber-optic cable.

 

[Charade]

Interesting and somewhat annoying article this week on MSNBC:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24073432

The article makes it clear that with the over-the-air transition to digital coming next year, many (though not all) cable companies are also going to be transitioning to all-digital.

The annoying part of the articles is that through most of it, they support King's assertion that the government did this to him, and that he had no choice. That's bull... the government gave him a choice, and he chose to go all-digital. That is finally clarified at the end of the article, "Nothing in the rules would prevent operators from continuing to offer both analog and digital signals, however."

What is most notable in the article, though, is this:Whether the cable company could charge for set-top boxes needed to convert their all-digital signals to analog through 2012 was something that wasn't clear up until now. This makes it clear: Unless and until someone sues and wins, this is effectively the law of the land. If your cable company goes all-digital, they can charge you for the necessary converter boxes needed for you to continue to receive analog signals on your analog televisions.

This is interesting. We have Comcast for internet and for the price of internet alone, we can get basic (analog) cable as well. We only use the analog cable when the satellite goes down (which isn't often) but we do have plans to add jacks to our spare bedrooms.

I think consumers should be allowed to buy D-A converters that work with their cable system rather be required to rent them. Right now we can rent a cable modem or use our own. We own ours and it's been fine for 7 years. Saved a lot of money too!

This is reminiscent of when cable first came out and you were required to have a box for (or pay for) each drop. I think now they can't charge per drop if your sets are cable ready (which most are nowadays). Most newer sets are now "cable ready" via a card. It'll just be some time (10 years or so) when this will all shake out.

Perhaps the cable companies should provide one box "included" with the basic subscription price and the consumer should be required to buy or rent any additional boxes.

OTH, people who might be left out in the cold because they don't want to or can't afford (like the older woman in the article) additional equipment should take advantage of the (nearly) free D-A OTA converters and buy an antenna.

Just like in the "old days"...

But I think the cable providers will lose a lot of business if they don't "compromise" by providing at least something for the consumer. Is it better to give back $5 a month to keep $75? I think so.

 

[bicker]

I think consumers should be allowed to buy D-A converters that work with their cable system rather be required to rent them.

You can, but in many cases they will work only for the local broadcast channels. Remember, providing cable service to multiple outlets is a value-added service. It was only the deployment of "cable-ready" televisions that gutted the cable companies' ability to charge extra for additional outlets, a mistake they don't plan on allowing again. They're encrypting most (but not all) cable channels, and so your digital-to-analog converter boxes will have to support CableCard (for now) to receive those channels on these additional boxes.

OTH, people who might be left out in the cold because they don't want to or can't afford (like the older woman in the article) additional equipment should take advantage of the (nearly) free D-A OTA converters and buy an antenna.

Absolutely. Over the last few months, one by one, we've changed our TiVo Season Passes from recording off of the cable channel to recording off the OTA channel. There is only one channel (our Fox affiliate) where the cable channel is (very marginally, now) better -- in all the other cases, the OTA channel is as good as or better than the cable channel. And this is from a small antenna sitting on a speaker cabinet next to my television, inside my living room. (This one.)

But I think the cable providers will lose a lot of business if they don't "compromise" by providing at least something for the consumer. Is it better to give back $5 a month to keep $75? I think so.

I think you're right that they'll provide one free box and then charge for extras, though clearly some cable companies aren't going that route, such as Cablevision of Marion County (FL).

 

[solferino]

And there is a very significant difference between watching a digital channel on an old analog set and watching it on an HDTV.

You sound like my BIL with a 60" set that is too big for their very small livingroom.

 

[katerkat]

You sound like my BIL with a 60" set that is too big for their very small livingroom.

Hey! It's VERY important to be able to read my Tivo list from the end of my driveway.

 

[bicker]

Televisions that are too big for the room are as bad televisions as too small for the room. Do I still sound like your BIL?

I think the point I was making there is that older (analog) televisions didn't have the capability of presenting breath-taking picture quality. A presentation like Discovery's recent Planet Earth would still have been remarkable, but it wouldn't be as significant if many viewers weren't able to appreciate it as well as HDTVs allowed them to.

In many ways, the difference between HD and analog is a bit like the difference between going to showing of lithographs at the art museum and viewing them from photographs in a coffee table book. You can still appreciate the artistry either way, of course, constrained by the limitations of how you viewed them, though.

 

[solferino]

Televisions that are too big for the room are as bad televisions as too small for the room. Do I still sound like your BIL?

I think the point I was making there is that older (analog) televisions didn't have the capability of presenting breath-taking picture quality. A presentation like Discovery's recent Planet Earth would still have been remarkable, but it wouldn't be as significant if many viewers weren't able to appreciate it as well as HDTVs allowed them to.

In many ways, the difference between HD and analog is a bit like the difference between going to showing of lithographs at the art museum and viewing them from photographs in a coffee table book. You can still appreciate the artistry either way, of course, constrained by the limitations of how you viewed them, though.

TV just isn't that important to me I guess, because breath-taking picture quality is important to me. YMMV, of course

But yes, you still sound like my BIL

Hey! It's VERY important to be able to read my Tivo list from the end of my driveway.

OMG, I'm totally living in the dark ages of TV because we don't even have Tivo

 

[katerkat]

OMG, I'm totally living in the dark ages of TV because we don't even have Tivo

Oh, I am so sorry. Maybe someday you'll learn of the joy of never ever watching commercials.

Actually, my Tivo tapes in rather crappy quality, so I have the huge fancy TV which never gets used to its full potential because I refuse to watch TV in real time.

 

[Kirby]

I know this poll is a little old, but I'm surprised at the results. I thought my grandparents were the only ones left on Earth without cable.

We don't have cable either and we're not grandparents. We just don't feel t he need to spend the extra money each month.