backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 55 comment(s) - last by Alias1431.. on Oct 23 at 11:55 AM
DTV switch will be messy says FCC

The February 2009 changeover to all digital broadcasts around the country is drawing closer and many TV watchers are still not ready for the switch. After February 17, viewers without a digital TV, cable, satellite or a converter box will no longer get a signal in most markets.

Reuters reports that the Government Accountability Office says about 15% of U.S. households are using analog only TVs and will need a converter. Public service campaigns from broadcasters are running around the country and the FCC says that the campaigns need to be tailored to local markets.

FCC member Robert McDowell said, "The transition will be messy ... but we will get through it." The government is providing coupons to viewers who need to get converter boxes that will cover up to $40 of the sales price of the converters. The issue with the coupons is twofold. First, many of the converters are priced more than $40, meaning that consumers will need to pay some money out of pocket in many cases.

The second issue with the coupon program is that there is no plan in place to deal with the expected rush of last minute consumer demand for the coupons. Exactly what the coupon program needs to do to get ready for the rush is unclear.

The digital transition continues to confuse many consumers on whether or not they need a converter box. In a nutshell, it doesn't matter what kind of TV you have if you are using cable or satellite service to watch programming. If you use an antenna to watch TV and your TV is older, you will likely need a converter. Further confusion comes from the fact that not all TV stations will be changing to digital on February 17.

The FCC is allowing certain low power stations in some markets to continue broadcasting analog signals after the transition date. Many of the converters currently on the market don’t offer analog pass through, which means that some viewers could miss local stations if they buy a converter not offering pass through of analog signals.

DailyTech first reported that the digital transition would take place on February 17, 2009 way back in December of 2005.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
TV is not a right
By ggordonliddy on 10/17/2008 1:44:07 PM , Rating: 3
Who the hell cares if people can watch TV or not. TV is not a right, and the world would be better without it for the most part. Any news can be gotten via radio for someone who truly cannot afford the converter (and if you can't afford the converter, step away from the TV to get a part time job for a day to afford it).




RE: TV is not a right
By croc on 10/17/2008 8:48:42 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, FTA is not only a 'right' it is a responsibility of and part of a station's license as authorized by the FCC... How else is Joe the Plumber going to be able to watch the political debates? Or see the negative ads?

The dumb thing was the 40$ coupons... I can see the makers of those converters rubbing their hands....


RE: TV is not a right
By omnicronx on 10/18/2008 2:15:32 AM , Rating: 1
Dont blame the FCC, Blame Google!!!


RE: TV is not a right
By Alias1431 on 10/17/08, Rating: -1
RE: TV is not a right
By Alias1431 on 10/23/2008 11:55:34 AM , Rating: 1
Negative one this man.


RE: TV is not a right
By mindless1 on 10/17/08, Rating: -1
RE: TV is not a right
By FITCamaro on 10/18/2008 9:09:05 AM , Rating: 4
It's not our fault that you don't care about how your money is spent.


RE: TV is not a right
By mindless1 on 10/18/2008 11:24:59 AM , Rating: 2
You have it backwards, I do care how the money is spent and disagree with how most of it is spent, feel that if all these programs are wasting that money and causing excessive taxation for what I'm getting out of it, then it is reasonable to also see something fruitful from taxes.


RE: TV is not a right
By Dove2Three on 10/18/2008 12:28:56 PM , Rating: 3
No, you have it backwards. Speaking up about how the government is wasting OUR money isn't "whining". The people whining are those complaining about the cost of a converter box, and thinking the rest of us have some sort of duty to buy one for them.


RE: TV is not a right
By mindless1 on 10/19/2008 2:24:00 AM , Rating: 2
No, it IS whining, because only an idiot thinks that STARTING the whining in a tech new site forum is useful, has any possible fruitful outcome.

That's just stupid.


RE: TV is not a right
By sxr7171 on 10/19/2008 1:15:35 PM , Rating: 2
Then there's no point expressing any opinion on a tech site by your own words. So why don't we all just stop posting - starting with you.


RE: TV is not a right
By Oregonian2 on 10/20/2008 2:11:08 PM , Rating: 1
This particular thread is whining because this particular government program is running with a large profit margin (admittedly VERY rare) -- it isn't spending tax money. Recall that part of this to-digital transfer included the auctioning of "former" TV frequencies.


RE: TV is not a right
By sxr7171 on 10/19/2008 1:13:47 PM , Rating: 3
I agree wholeheartedly. Radio can reach those people who are far from TV towers and to whom it is not economically feasible to provide service. If they want TV so badly maybe they can buy the converter/huge antenna whatever on their own dime. If not move to where you can get service easily. For those stuck needing OTA analog signal, go buy your own converter or start getting used to radio. Maybe they should keep one emergency broadcast channel on analog for these people.

Personally I choose not to watch TV myself.


Why should we care about the switch to Digital TV?
By Wyodiver on 10/18/2008 9:44:21 PM , Rating: 2
Who uses an antenna anymore? And who cares about those that do? The US government should not have to help Rabbit-Ear users. That tech is from the 1940's. Jebus, get basic cable already. I have no patience for idiots who want the $40 coupon. Tech changes. Thank God it does.




By Wyodiver on 10/18/2008 9:52:15 PM , Rating: 2
Those who are poor, or hurting financially, well I can totally understand that. But I think there will be a huge amount of people who are just cheap taking advantage of the US Gov Coupons.


By sxr7171 on 10/19/2008 1:18:35 PM , Rating: 2
A lot of people who already have expensive digital TVs want one on uncle sam's dime for their stupid 2nd, 3rd, or 4th TVs. People are so obnoxiously spoiled.


By the goat on 10/17/2008 11:30:20 AM , Rating: 5
My local broadcast channels have been running annoying messages about the switch that display on top of whatever show I am watching. This problem is see this message while I am watching their digital channel over the air. So I obviously have already taken care of everything I needed to do to switch to digital. Showing the warning message to people watching the digital channel is just stupid. I am sure it will confuse a lot of viewers.

Furthermore my local NBC station shows the message during the same program every day. Guess what NBC showing the message everyday during Jeopardy only reaches people who watch Jeopardy (a small percentage of total viewers). You need to vary the time of day you show the message. Wouldn't that make sense?




ACTUALLY SHOCKED
By rupaniii on 10/17/2008 3:21:37 PM , Rating: 2
If you work as a rep in a Best Buy, Circuit City, Sears, etc, this will actually SHOCK you.

They sell these boxes by the pallet load per day.
I am surprised anyone but somebody's grandma doesn't have it.
I sold 3 to a grandfather yesterday.




RE: ACTUALLY SHOCKED
By sxr7171 on 10/19/2008 1:25:25 PM , Rating: 2
Okay you sold 3 to the same person I hope he had only 1 coupon at most, because if he had 3 coupons that we all paid for so that 3 TVs in his house are subsidized then that explains why this going to be a difficult transition. If anything a person who owns 3 TVs should not get hand outs.


Joe the Plumber
By isorfir on 10/17/2008 11:23:50 AM , Rating: 2
To further the confusion, when I talk to most people about it, they call it the switch to “HDTV”. They are otherwise intelligent people, just haven’t been in the loop for HDTV and the Digital transition. I feel bad correcting them, but I don’t want them to propagate the misinformation.




Government that is NOT "of the people..."
By paulpod on 10/17/08, Rating: 0
By plonk420 on 10/18/2008 7:55:12 PM , Rating: 2
your post has almost nothing to do with OTA broadcasts. most all i see is bitching about cable. SOME cable companies are taking advantage of the situation and forcing customers over to digital .. but not ALL companies are. i'm not entirely sure it even affects (what were previously) OTA channels via cable. and personally i don't care since i have an CECB (which i pretty much never use) and Blockbuster Online. so go bitch to your cable company if they're forcing you over or switch companies. if you can't, well, i'm sorry. slightly (mainly for my experiences with ISP monopolies).

as for your APPLICABLE points, CECBs were NOT for Mr Cable User and "rich" HDTV owner. they were for Grandma Fran who have had rabbit ears and broadcast TV her entire life. they were SUPPOSED to be SDTV.

CECBs are REQUIRED to have stereo inputs, and, well, if the user doesn't know how to hook it up, they probably won't benefit from and aren't missing it.

for people who can actually notice the difference between S-Video and Composite (again, you're getting into the realm of Mr HDTV Owner), most TVs have (what i believe is called) a comb filter, which will clean up a composite feed (if it's good enough to benefit from the cleanup) to a level very near (if not even better than) the only S-Video CECB (the Channel Master).

from personal experience, the BB Insignia box is OK. i thought it was good until i saw the Sansonic. now this is purely based on PQ. the Insignia probably has one of the better/best UIs. Sansonic has essentially nothing.

as for boxes with the best PQ, i'm having issues finding the article (pretty sure it was Consumer Reports), but the boxes with the best PQ were all no-name providers, which, yes, as someone else said, are all probably wringing their hands greedily. this might be the link: http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/electronics-com...

as for the audio issues, check out AVSForum. my Insignia made in Nov 2007 or Feb 2008 (i can't remember) has no issues. i remember ONE of the boxes you had to get a post-April box to avoid audio issues. i haven't had the issue on my Sansonic, either.

all in all, since you're rich enough to have an HDTV (or HDTV s ), suck it up and just have your premium services on a main TV or two, or quitcher bitching. welcome to life with the "rich" people and "cutting edge technology". (if you don't think an HDTV is for "rich" people, just ask any old person what they think of spending $800 (for a crap LCD) up to $3000+ (even in inflation-adjusted amounts) is sane or not)


Target audience
By chmilz on 10/17/2008 12:34:44 PM , Rating: 1
I see these ads up in Canada on HDTV channels through my digital cable provider. If they're concerned about people not getting the message, they might want to talk to the messenger about where they're delivering the message...

... but then again it's always Comcast ads, and even up here we know how awesome they are.




NOOOO!!!!
By Gzus666 on 10/17/08, Rating: -1
RE: NOOOO!!!!
By mmntech on 10/17/2008 11:31:06 AM , Rating: 2
The problem is that TV is considered to be an essential service in the United States. Along with radio, it's used as a public address tool. It's essential in case of disasters where the public may need immediate notification. It also serves as a tool for informing the electorate. Not everyone can afford cable or satellite so OTA is their only means of receiving broadcasts. That doesn't make them morons.


RE: NOOOO!!!!
By Gzus666 on 10/17/08, Rating: -1
RE: NOOOO!!!!
By Aloonatic on 10/17/2008 11:52:08 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not really sure if you are joking and being intentionally erm.... weird???

The "digital switch-over" is being handled by the BBC over here and it's going fairly well by all accounts.

The major problem demographic that are struggling to keep up are not the morons/simpletons however.

After all, they will be queueing up to be sold the super-dooper digital TV box with extra lights and so on which does nothing more than many other systems for a 1/4 of the price and brag about how much it cost to their friends.

The problem group are the elderly who (arguably) are the people who depend on terrestrial (or what ever you call non-satellite or cable) broadcasts the most for entertainment and news/information services.

Not every granny has a grandson or daughter who is able to set them up with what they need.


RE: NOOOO!!!!
By Gzus666 on 10/17/08, Rating: -1
RE: NOOOO!!!!
By Chaser on 10/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: NOOOO!!!!
By Gzus666 on 10/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: NOOOO!!!!
By Chaser on 10/17/2008 7:26:59 PM , Rating: 2
Not everyone has the time to prioritize things the way you expect them to.

I think your "Pop" left you in front of the "TV" too much with his 100 hour work weeks.


RE: NOOOO!!!!
By sxr7171 on 10/19/2008 1:27:34 PM , Rating: 2
Then pay $40 or get used to radio. Who actually watches the TV in the morning? They just listen to it.


RE: NOOOO!!!!
By Alexstarfire on 10/17/2008 12:48:17 PM , Rating: 2
OK, while his post is a little over the top I sorta agree with what he's saying. It doesn't matter if they use TV for "emergency" purposes, a radio is always going to be better to have. As far as I know... my TV can't run off batteries like my radio can, or actually my phone as my case may be. There is no reason I should be paying for people to get DTV converters. This whole philosophy of the rich (actually middle class) helping the poor (lower class) really needs to stop. If individuals what to help then so be it, I won't stop them. Being forced to provide "help" to them is just a waste of my money.

This is about the same as the government giving that cell phone company a tax break for giving the poor/homeless free cells phones with limited service. Just a fucking waste of money.


RE: NOOOO!!!!
By FITCamaro on 10/17/2008 12:52:08 PM , Rating: 3
Agreed. It's ridiculous that you and I should have to pay for people to be able to continue to watch their TV. Any emergency broadcast sent over the TV is also sent over the radio.


RE: NOOOO!!!!
By SlipDizzy on 10/17/2008 1:08:48 PM , Rating: 2
Well.... I'm just going to go out on a limb here..... Some people can't hear, perhaps there only chance to catch said emergency broadcast is through the television?


RE: NOOOO!!!!
By Lord 666 on 10/17/2008 4:02:05 PM , Rating: 1
While I generally agree with Gzus666, you have a good point. Didn't think of my 96 year old deaf aunt and if she even watches TV. I'll stop by over the weekend to check it out


RE: NOOOO!!!!
By joex444 on 10/17/2008 1:53:51 PM , Rating: 2
Consider this, though. You're the one that is poor, in fact, you're in poverty for sake of argument.

You have a TV, which is somewhat of a major purchase for you. It's an analog SDTV, but you're happy.

Then the government (FCC) comes along and tells the stations that you get the signals from to start broadcasting only in a digital format. This will leave your perfectly fine TV unable to display any information.

My point is that these people who need DTV boxes wouldn't have needed them in the first place if the FCC didn't mandate DTV broadcast. But, they did. And since the FCC is a goverment agency, I don't see any reason why the government shouldn't be forced to pay for the consequences of their actions. They want DTV, fine -- let them buy the boxes for the analog-only TVs.

And let's be realistic here, if the coupon is $40 and 15% of households need a DTV box, *and* there's 180M households (300M people), then you're really looking at about $1.08B for the boxes. Sounds like a lot, but your share of it a) depends on your income level b) is on average $3.

I don't think $3 to buy DTV boxes is that ridiculous of a use of taxpayer money. Atleast it helps out the entire country, unlike some of the very narrowly focused programs we have.


RE: NOOOO!!!!
By Gzus666 on 10/17/2008 2:57:56 PM , Rating: 2
It helps the stupid people. Things progress over time, they don't owe you television. There aren't too many horribly poor people that aren't utter dipshits. I don't understand how a country can preach capitalism, yet coddle so many morons. NO ONE IS ENTITLED TO CRAP FOR BEING BORN! You earn what you get through hard work, not bitching. I'm sick of this self entitlement, the weak, stupid and old alike don't deserve to be treated special. If any other animal is born this way, they are in trouble, but not our wonderful societies, we let the minority run the majority.

How about instead of them watching TV, they go read a book and learn something, and figure out how to get out of the poor house? Last I checked the library is completely free.


RE: NOOOO!!!!
By JediJeb on 10/17/2008 3:21:09 PM , Rating: 2
Ok if you believe all this, would you be able to survive if all the farmers in the world decided let's just grow what we need to survive and let everyone else either grow their own food or starve? They would probably thing you are stupid if you don't know how to produce food. Do you know proper planting and harvesting times, proper use of nutrients and water? Many of these people are very intelligent, just not schooled in the same subject as you or I.

I am a chemist, my father is a mechanic and farmer, my grandparents were farmers. All are very smart but not in the same things. My grandmother made it look easy to get tons of produce from a garden, I can barely get enough to make a salad from mine. She would not know much more about a TV than to turn it on and select a channel but you lay 4 different types of seeds on the table and she could tell you what each was and when and how to plant it in a second.

Don't judge people on their intelligence just because they are not experts in the same subjects as you.


RE: NOOOO!!!!
By JediJeb on 10/17/2008 3:24:16 PM , Rating: 2
probably "think" not "thing" , not good with proofreading when Im fired up.


RE: NOOOO!!!!
By HrilL on 10/17/2008 5:12:18 PM , Rating: 1
The simple fact is that Farmers that grow our food are not like that at all. Most of these people working on farms don't know very much. They are uneducated and are pretty much told by someone else what to do and when to do it. Farms probably have around 20 million or more workers and out of that I bet only around 10 thousand actually know that things you are talking about.

And I think he is talking about more of the retards that live off welfare or disability (for things that a normal person would shrug off) they are sucks off society and now we are supposed to pay for them to have TV. Give me a break. The fact is these people are the kind of people that are so lazy that they even refuse to learn. They don't like any kind of change and refuse to learn a new way. These people don't need TV they need an education and the way to help force them to get one is to take away their TV. That way they’ll get off their asses and maybe do something with their lives.

Now I do agree that some old and truly disabled people do need help with this and they do deserve a government handout. But I bet that is about 7% of the 15% that need a converter box. The other 7% I truly believe they would be better off with no TV because it will help them in the long run. They’ll hopefully find something more productive to do or they’ll steal a new TV. Either way the problem is solved.


RE: NOOOO!!!!
By Gzus666 on 10/17/2008 5:31:18 PM , Rating: 3
My pop was a farmer when he was young, now he works in telcom. He read non-stop when he was a kid, and learned. He was valedictorian of his high school, all while playing football, wrestling and playing tennis (he excelled at them all, and has trophies for his wrestling). He did this while farming sun up to sun down, why can't others? Because they are sub par, or they just don't want to. Either way, it is not the responsibility of the average person to support these people.

If you don't have the ability to read the newspaper, read online news, listen to the radio or watch the TV you want to continue watching and see the DTV switch commercials and articles, you are either inept or just don't pay attention. Neither of these are the tax payers problem.


RE: NOOOO!!!!
By mindless1 on 10/17/2008 9:54:51 PM , Rating: 2
If a one time $40 coupon gets you this worked up, you really need to get your priorities in life straightened out.

Everyone spends their time on something and so do the majority who are lower class workers. Your father played football, wrestled, tennis, while many people were working instead of playing. What if someone came along and said their greed makes them feel their tax dollars shouldn't pay for these programs at school? They cost more than a $40 converter box did.

Think on that awhile, because you seem ignorant that lots of things that benefit you and yours, others don't particularly want to pay for either but that's how it works and you'd do well to either accept it or find another country to live in.


RE: NOOOO!!!!
By sxr7171 on 10/19/2008 2:13:04 PM , Rating: 2
What's your point? Your grandma is a productive member of society and grows enough food well enough to afford TV, some people do not and they don't NEED TV.


RE: NOOOO!!!!
By FITCamaro on 10/17/2008 5:50:05 PM , Rating: 2
It wasn't $3. I believe the vouchers were for $75. And it was several million dollars total.

And I'm sorry but progress should not be stopped just because some can't afford to spend $75 on a digital TV converter. And not just the poor were eligible for the voucher. Anyone was regardless of income. So even if someone could afford it without issue, they could get the money.


RE: NOOOO!!!!
By mindless1 on 10/17/2008 10:30:13 PM , Rating: 2
First, if you recall the plan all along was that by giving out vouchers, that would allow auctioning freed up spectrum which negates the cost of the converter boxes.

Second, the aforementioned estimate was $3 per taxpayer, the vouchers themselves are for a $40 discount.

Third, you're right that anyone is eligible. I bought a converter box with a coupon myself because I WANT ONE, because if I ever want to hook up an old TV for OTA it will be needed, or if the CATV goes out I want the ability to do so without it being a particular newer TV. When hurricane Ike came through we did without cable for a week and watched analog OTA. We have a few not so old large analog TVs it would be wasteful to replace just yet and often more than one on a different channel.

I could've spent $40 out of pocket, instead of spending it on some other non-essential luxury items, but guess what? My tax money pays for government programs too and I am as entitled as anyone else to get some benefit out of that.

If I am paying for someone to sit at home on welfare, if I am paying to maintain the largest prison population per capita in the entire civilized world, paying for a public education system for people who decide to have 8 children, bridges to nowhere, war on foreign soil, other country's relief and flood relief for people to foolish to move out of harm's way, and all kinds of other programs I don't agree with, then it's only reasonable to have some of my tax money go towards something I'd like in return.


RE: NOOOO!!!!
By sxr7171 on 10/19/2008 2:18:03 PM , Rating: 2
I don't blame you since you are paying for it. Basically that's why they shouldn't have paid for any of this nonsense. Not for you or for Joe Schmoe. The money should have gone to education for a change.


RE: NOOOO!!!!
By Oregonian2 on 10/20/2008 2:15:23 PM , Rating: 2
btw - I saw a newspaper ad yesterday for a converter that "costs' $40 and of course advertises as being "free" with the coupon. The predicted have arrived. I bought two when they were $60 -- when the coupons first came out (to be sure I could get them -- I wonder how many of the supposedly fixed number have been given out already).


RE: NOOOO!!!!
By Spectator on 10/18/2008 2:28:11 PM , Rating: 2
Fook BBC. They are all greedy mofo.

Here in uk. you have to pay for TV Licence IF.. You have a "Device" capable of recieveing the signal.. Yaa that sht is robbery.

Firstly:. We all have to pay. Analogue is 2 channels Only.

Secondly:. "Freeview" has more BBC channels all low def. But you gota pay for a box or TV with freeview built in.

Lastly:. BBC also have HD. but guess what?.. yup that needs more hardware..

At this point. in real world. Id be calling the Samaritans or asking if i could get some Lubricant; As there is no avoiding this SHAFTING.

So all us dumb fookers that are forced to pay for this sht anyway. Have to fork out more cash for freeview; then more cash if we want HD.. Riddle me that sht before you complain :P

I want to know who i have to give head to for a government enforced 6bil GBP per year income deal. fook the consumer. I get paid regardless of what they want.

:).. :) Chukkle


RE: NOOOO!!!!
By Aloonatic on 10/20/2008 5:37:05 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, and I thought that we would never see another writer as gifted as Shakespeare but you sure proved me wrong :)

I wasn't complaining by the way, just so you know? :-s

Freeview boxes are pretty damn cheap, £20 shouldn't be too much of a stretch for most people.

There was an announcement regarding HD freeView broadcasts in a year or so (not HD freeSat) but as you so eloquently point out, that will mean another box to be bought.

As for the TV licence, I'm kinda with you there, I think :-/

We pay £135 a year so we can watch more EastEnders and The Party's (Labour Party) political broadcasts that offer unwavering support to our Glorious Leader (Gordon Brown) as that is all that the BBC (Brown Broadcasting Corporation for those that don't know what BBC stands for) produces these days.

Frankly, TV is a medium that has reached it's peak and is now on the wane.

The BBC do occasionally produce something good and are able to take chances on people as they are not relent on chasing ratings and therefore "lowest common denominator" programs should not be being produced, but if you live in the UK then you will know that that is not the cast and much of the BBC's output is now cheap uninspiring rubbish.

You can get around the license however and watch most shows when you want by not having a TV (or any broadcast recieveing doodad, as you pointed out) and watch all the programs on the internet via the "on demand" and "iPlayer" services.

This is a loop hole that will be closed soon however and I would wager that we will soon have a computer tax, with each machine registered to a user and paid for.

Killing 2 birds with 1 stone, raking in more money and helping The Party monitor our internet use and track our virtual lives with a registered computer.

Watch this space.

All hail our Glorious Leader Gordon Brown who makes the sun shine in the day and the starts shine at night.


RE: NOOOO!!!!
By Will14 on 10/17/2008 4:38:16 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for calling everyone without a box/digital tuner a simpleton or moron. Also the credit program doesn't cover the cost. I'm sort of ticked, I cannot get satellite at my apartment and the cable package they offer is abysmmal currently. So I'm stuck with you got it, OTA television. I have a projector as my main tv, and a real old tv for air channels(football games). Now I could pay $20+ for a convertor box that I'd likely only use for one year until I suck it up and pay for an inferior cable product or buy a house. IMO the converter boxes should be digital/analog antennae's instead or be closer to the tax credit amount.

They need to push for higher broadband rates so the US becomes a feasible market for ip tv. Then I could buy a service with $1/channel and buy the 25 channels I'd actually watch for a good rate.

Also many may have a newish tv from the last 5 years and may be unsure of whether or not they have a digital tuner. If you could step back from your arrogance for a moment, I understand all this, think of older individuals etc who may not even understand the computer and internet let alone tv signals. Lastly they send you the coupon in the form of a credit card, to my knowledge you don't go to pick it up, sorry you won't get to shoot and elderly citizens in the face.


RE: NOOOO!!!!
By Gzus666 on 10/17/2008 5:42:38 PM , Rating: 1
You are so right, you are entitled to free over the air TV cause you have a pulse and are too cheap to drop some money on a converter. How dare they not give you things for free. They should also force the companies who make them to adjust the prices of their products so that you can get them cheaper.

quote:
Also many may have a newish tv from the last 5 years and may be unsure of whether or not they have a digital tuner.


You are so right, they might have to read the manual or call the manufacturer, and that would be a living hell! Same assholes who can't set the clock on their appliances cause they won't spend 20 seconds of their life reading the manual.


RE: NOOOO!!!!
By tential on 10/17/2008 5:17:57 PM , Rating: 1
This is such an ignorant post that I'm not even sure how you are allowed to post here. Everyone knows a lot about different things. That's like a fashion expert saying you should be shot in the face for wearing a nerdy outfit. I know people who can't tell the difference between a Mercedes and a Chrysler, people who can't understand the concept of bandwidth, and people who don't understand the differences in computer purchases yet that doesn't make any of them stupid. We all know different things and economically that is smart. We specialize in the things we know and we ask other people who know more about different subjects for help. (Economics ties into everything and it scares me :()


RE: NOOOO!!!!
By Gzus666 on 10/17/2008 5:33:51 PM , Rating: 2
You have to be an expert to read the news or see the DTV commercials that tell you this? Or even walk into a store and not see something about it? I believe they have a phrase for that, willfully ignorant. Cry me a river, they are dumb.


RE: NOOOO!!!!
By QueBert on 10/18/2008 3:55:14 PM , Rating: 2
some people are horrible with any technology. My mom is a perfect example, even reading a man manual she still can't use most electronics. Is she dumb? Depends on how you look at it, she can't program the clock on a VCR, but she can watch Jeopardy and get 95% of the questions right. Meanwhile I'm a technical wiz and might hit 15% correct on Jeopardy. I think in the big scheme of things I'm a lot more dumb then she is *shrug*


"Well, we didn't have anyone in line that got shot waiting for our system." -- Nintendo of America Vice President Perrin Kaplan

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki