Digital TV may adversely affect Seniors come 2009

[sageofages]

Originally Posted by kddani

I'm sorry, when did television become essential to one's life? No one is going to die or get sick because they don't have television.

Tell that to my senior mother when a Chicago Cubs game is on....

[CrimsonTide4]

Originally Posted by sageofages

Tell that to my senior mother when a Chicago Cubs game is on....

Sounds like my grandmother and her Cleveland Indians. She goes nowhere while the games are on. No.where.

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by kddani

I'm sorry, when did television become essential to one's life? No one is going to die or get sick because they don't have television.

I don't remember anybody saying TV is essential.

However some people (including perhaps a higher proportion of elderly) are dependent on TV to help pass the time in their lives. It almost becomes a friend to those who may be alone.

That's certainly the case with my dad who is not particularly ambulatory any more.

Without TV, his life wouldn't end, but he would have a lot less to do and look forward to.

That's sad. But it's true.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

I don't remember anybody saying TV is essential.

However some people (including perhaps a higher proportion of elderly) are dependent on TV to help pass the time in their lives. It almost becomes a friend to those who may be alone.

That's certainly the case with my dad who is not particularly ambulatory any more.

Without TV, his life wouldn't end, but he would have a lot less to do and look forward to.

That's sad. But it's true.

Ditto for my mom, who is only able to leave her home to go to the doctor. She has TV, books and Sudoku. It's sad, but true. Perhaps this is why the focus is on seniors?

[Rudey]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

The story here is about seniors, but reality is that a whole lot more people are going to have problems. A whole lot of people simply aren't technically adept. It will also be a burden to the poor.

But beside that...

My feeling is, and has been for years, that this transition to digital broadcasting was, a) totally unnecessary and b) handled terribly from top to bottom. It would take way too much time, space and bandwidth to explain it all.

There are two entities that are going to make out on this. The first is the government as they auction off use of the present NTSC spectrum, and the second is the TV set manufacturers.

I think that most broadcasters would agree with me, but at this point there's nothing we can do but comply with turning off the old transmitters at the mandated time.

ETA:

"Why do you need a new box?

From what I know, it's over the air signals that are affected (OTA) and that's a change from NTSC to ATSC."

I believe that if you have a digital cable box, you probably will not need new equipment. If you aren't on cable or DBS though, a standard analog television set (which MANY sets still are) will not be able to translate and show the new digital signal without some kind of additional equipment. Also, the aspect ratio (shape of picture) will change from 4x3 to 16x9 (first number is width of the picture and second is height). That means that older sets will make everything look tall and skinny because the new, wider picture will be "squashed." Newer sets may show the new programs in "letter box" with thick black lines at the top and bottom of the screen. You can already see that happening on some series if you're watching on an old 4x3 set.

Most cable runs on QAM so that's why I thought it wouldn't be affected by the digital/analog spectrum. Those signals are pumped through a cable into someone's house and the QAM tuner interprets them. With NTSC and ATSC, the signal is broadcast over the air. Cable customers don't need ATSC tuners on their television or even QAM tuners in the tv set, and can actually link a monitor to any cable box because the cable operates independent of that.

How do those entitites make anything off this? Actually the government is the people. So if the government sells that spectrum, basically you and I as citizens get the added benefit of what the government makes from that as well as the use of the spectrum for something more useful - like wifi. Also a TV manufacturer isn't making more profits by including an ATSC tuner instead of an NTSC tuner - that's why so many manufacturers and broadcasters have been against ATSC. Broadcasters that are moving towards digital are doing so because they don't want people breaking into their systems anymore.

-Rudey

[AGDee]

So, from what I was reading, the bottom line is that you either have to have cable with a converter box or your TV has to be digital ready. I'm still unsure how one knows if their TV will work or not though.

[Rudey]

Originally Posted by AGDee

So, from what I was reading, the bottom line is that you either have to have cable with a converter box or your TV has to be digital ready. I'm still unsure how one knows if their TV will work or not though.

If you have cable, you should be fine. If you have no cable or satellite and you're receiving your signal "over the air" with an antenna, you'll need a converter which will be pretty cheap and the government will even probably give you a subsidy. You will be fine.

Here: http://www.dtv.gov/consumercorner.html

-Rudey

[Tom Earp]

Originally Posted by AGDee

So, from what I was reading, the bottom line is that you either have to have cable with a converter box or your TV has to be digital ready. I'm still unsure how one knows if their TV will work or not though.

Well I guess when it stops working and you sit there blithering with nothing to do except if you can work, have a computor and be able to work it!

Yep my Father had to have his TV as about all he could do! Loved Foot Ball Season!

Now every fall, I think of him and watching the game!

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by Rudey

If you have cable, you should be fine. If you have no cable or satellite and you're receiving your signal "over the air" with an antenna, you'll need a converter which will be pretty cheap and the government will even probably give you a subsidy. You will be fine.

Here: http://www.dtv.gov/consumercorner.html

-Rudey

Most of what you say is correct and we're pretty much saying the same thing. However "cheap" is a relative term for those on fixed incomes.

The TV set manufacturers have salivated over this change for years because of the change in aspect ratio (explained above). They believe, probably correctly, that most everyone is going to buy a 16x9 set. That's a lot of sets.

As for the government auctioning off spectrum space for "my/our" benefit, you have more faith in Washington than I do.

[Rudey]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

Most of what you say is correct and we're pretty much saying the same thing. However "cheap" is a relative term for those on fixed incomes.

The TV set manufacturers have salivated over this change for years because of the change in aspect ratio (explained above). They believe, probably correctly, that most everyone is going to buy a 16x9 set. That's a lot of sets.

As for the government auctioning off spectrum space for "my/our" benefit, you have more faith in Washington than I do.

I have 0 faith in Washington so let's get that out of the way.

But aside from that, the spectrum is to be used for emergency services and also Google is trying to create a large wifi network that can be used for everything from internet service to making voice calls. Wherever the money goes...well I'm sure when they provide anti-terrorism funding to some tiny town in the middle of nowhere, those guys can be happy about that.

-Rudey