M>> During the same period consumers were supposed to buy digital
>> television receivers. That part didn't work.
> The life of a TV set could be anywhere between five and thirty-five
> years. There's a heck of a lot of old TV sets out there still in
> service, some surprisingly old. Many people use old B&W portables as
> spare room or attic TVs.
> Why the heck should consumers be forced to upgrade to get the same old
> broadcast garbage?
Depends what the converter will cost. Anyone know the price?
There are also a lot of TV viewers out there who don't watch a lot of
> TV. Their TV sets last a long time. They don't have cable. What
> will become of them?
> Ironically, back in the 1950s, the choice of what color TV
> transmission protocol was determined on compatibility with existing
> B&W sets, even though there were far fewer sets out there.
> I guess the selfish technocrats and greedy businesses just can't wait
> to get their mitts on the radio frequencies to play with.
> It amazes me that the more cable channels they offer to me the less TV
> I watch. They just throw out utter junk, and get rid of the little
> good stuff they once had. It duplicates each other -- "Cheers" is
> broadcast and cablecast on numerous channels. And for something I
> pay and pay dearly for they throw in tons of commercials -- more than
> commercial TV does.
HDTV reopens the door for my wife and I (senior citizens). There are some great travel type programs in HD that become worth watching because of color, clarity, and resolution.
But they make a heck of a lot of money doing this.