Will you have to buy a new TV?

Kargyle · Post by **Kargyle** » November 5, 2003, 4:01 pm

If it wasn't for the government mandating certain industry changes we probably wouldn't have air bags in the majority of cars even today. By forcing the manufacturers to include a feature, such as a digital receiver, they force the manufacturers to find an affordable way to include it. Thus ensuring that everyone has access to that technology.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » November 5, 2003, 4:10 pm

I just love how people continue to equate legislation insuring safety of a consumer to legislation designed to make sure you have the HIGHEST QUALITY TELEVISION SIGNAL AVAILABLE.

Give it a rest fro crying out loud. If you can't see the difference, please go back and sit through Comprehension 101 instead of CLEPping the class.

Kargyle · Post by **Kargyle** » November 5, 2003, 4:57 pm

How does the fact that I used air bags as a basis for comparison change the logic of what I said? By mandating that all televisions have a digital receiver they force manufacturers to keep the price down. Otherwise when the official change to digital occurs people who can't afford one of the high end televisions will be out of luck. Hopefully now people should be able to buy a television with a digital receiver without seing a significant increase in the cost of low end televisions.

Not to mention that the legislation makes sure that even people too ignorant to know anything about televisions and technology will get a TV that can receive digital no matter what TV they buy.

Do you honestly believe that the legislation is going to threaten companies that build TVs?

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » November 5, 2003, 5:26 pm

airbags = consumer safety

Akin to production safety standards, OSHA, FLSA and the rest.

This has nothing to do with consumer safety, either physical or fiscal. The difference is so large that the comparison is just silly. This legislation will do exactly two things...raise the price of a baseline television and insure that the manufacturers of the tuners make a shitload of cash.

Post by **Sylvus** » November 5, 2003, 5:37 pm

Don't all TVs have to have an analog receiver in them right now? I still can't see why you people are crying over this, it just makes it so that NEW TVs purchased after 2007 don't require you to have Cable or Satellite for them to function as more than a paperweight.

Why the uproar? TVs aren't going to increase in price by $100 per unit because of these new receivers. Though if the legislation weren't in place, you can bet your ass that if you wanted the optional model with the tuner built in you'd have to pay $100 more.

Don't buy a new fucking TV if it upsets you that much.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » November 5, 2003, 6:24 pm

My first DVD player was 500.00. I bought it the first year they were available. New DVD players start at 39.00 for full sized home theater models at Best Buy today.

Grats to you that waited 10 years to buy one! I'll take the 10 years and 500.00 of quality picture over 10 years of VHS and 39.00.

I've been enjoying my HDTV for 2+ years now at 2,300 with receiver. You will be able to see what I've enjoyed for 10 years for 200.00 in 2012! BTW, that 2,300 is already down to about 1,300 in a two year span from 2001 to 2003 and the technology gets better and better. It's your choice. Quit fucking whining about prices and mandates, decide what your buy in price is going to be and sit and wait. Without the government stepping in, it would have been 2010 before HDTV took off. Our locat CBS station was complaining the entire way while they upgraded. CBS has the best picture and HDTV of all the networks but cheap local owners (merideth) may have waited years more without a timeline placed in front of their visionless owner.

Perhaps you'll do a little research and realize that your Progressive DVDs, your PS2s, your X-Boxes, your normal not HDTV channels, anything your eyes view look much better on High Definition TV.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » November 5, 2003, 6:45 pm

No argument on that point Winnow.

Now would you like to explain the justification for a government mandated switch to HDTV?

masteen · Post by **masteen** » November 5, 2003, 6:57 pm

I heard that it's easier for them to put mind control waves into digital signals.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » November 5, 2003, 7:05 pm

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/mi ... ontrol.htm

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » November 5, 2003, 8:15 pm

Fallanthas wrote:No argument on that point Winnow.

Now would you like to explain the justification for a government mandated switch to HDTV?

Yes. "Crusty Old Farts" are holding back the wave of the future!

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » November 5, 2003, 11:14 pm

Winnow wrote:
Fallanthas wrote:No argument on that point Winnow.

Now would you like to explain the justification for a government mandated switch to HDTV?
Yes. "Crusty Old Farts" are holding back the wave of the future!

And early adopters force people who have more important financial obligations than purchasing cock waving toys, to switch to things unnecessary

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » November 6, 2003, 10:45 am

To take this argument to it's logical conclusion I propose ALL TVs are made with NO receiving gear in WHATSOEVER. All you get is the power lead and the CRT. It's then up to you to add whatever receivers you see fit.

The fact that it then gives me a bunch of choices I have no interest in making is neither here nor there. Choice is overrated as much as market forces are. If I want a new TV I want to take it home and receive pictures with as little hassle as possible, thanks.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » November 6, 2003, 11:33 am

vn_Tanc wrote:To take this argument to it's logical conclusion I propose ALL TVs are made with NO receiving gear in WHATSOEVER. All you get is the power lead and the CRT. It's then up to you to add whatever receivers you see fit.

No you are not taking the argument to its logical conclusion. My argument is not that TVs should be built with tuners or not, its that the government should not be trying to dictate how TVs are made. That doesn't change if the government tries to say they should all be built with tuners, or without tuners. Your proposal of all TVs made with no receiving gear whatsoever is still dictating how TVs should be built, which is what I am objecting to.

The fact that it then gives me a bunch of choices I have no interest in making is neither here nor there. Choice is overrated as much as market forces are. If I want a new TV I want to take it home and receive pictures with as little hassle as possible, thanks.

The fact that you don't care about choice in this matter does not make it morally correct to remove that choice from others.

Kargyle · Post by **Kargyle** » November 6, 2003, 2:27 pm

So in other words there should be no standards at all? People should just buy a TV and pray to whatever gods happen to be listening that it will work with whatever technology the broadcasters in their area are using. If it doesn't, well it is obviously the consumers fault for failing to call all of their local broadcasters and verify what broadcast method they are using. I guess they would just have to hope that all the broadcasters in their area are using the method, otherwise they would just have to go out and buy a different tv for each of the different channels they want to watch.

I'm sure that sounds a little extreme but that is the danger you run by not having a standard.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » November 6, 2003, 2:51 pm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

vn_Tanc wrote:
To take this argument to it's logical conclusion I propose ALL TVs are made with NO receiving gear in WHATSOEVER. All you get is the power lead and the CRT. It's then up to you to add whatever receivers you see fit.

No you are not taking the argument to its logical conclusion. My argument is not that TVs should be built with tuners or not, its that the government should not be trying to dictate how TVs are made. That doesn't change if the government tries to say they should all be built with tuners, or without tuners. Your proposal of all TVs made with no receiving gear whatsoever is still dictating how TVs should be built, which is what I am objecting to.

Quote:

The fact that it then gives me a bunch of choices I have no interest in making is neither here nor there. Choice is overrated as much as market forces are. If I want a new TV I want to take it home and receive pictures with as little hassle as possible, thanks.

The fact that you don't care about choice in this matter does not make it morally correct to remove that choice from others.

Then, with all due respect, I think your objections are market fundamentalism run mad.

Notice how when people say "with all due respect" they really mean "I'm about to be disrespectful"?

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » November 6, 2003, 4:38 pm

vn_Tanc wrote:To take this argument to it's logical conclusion I propose ALL TVs are made with NO receiving gear in WHATSOEVER. All you get is the power lead and the CRT. It's then up to you to add whatever receivers you see fit.

what if I don't want a power lead? How dare you try and control what I want to purchase you fucking socialist. the government will never control me!

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » November 6, 2003, 4:43 pm

No Kargyle.

People will buy what they want, market advantage will determine what manufacturers offer. There is just no need for a government mandate here.