Going to all-digital. Questions.

[Peter Parker]

Sorry Skottey but in your first post you said that there are TVS without coax inputs. You are n'y so much playing devil's advocate as just not admitting that you made a mistake.

if I were the OP and i decided I wanted a set with a digital tuner (does not sound like he needs one BTW) i would go back and look at the sets again. If I could not find coax inputs I would ask a salesperson. If it turned out to be a monitor I would look elsewhere.

But there is no point in you and I arguing about how weird my logic was because I think that sets without a coax input won't have tuner either.

 

[skottey]

Sorry Skottey but in your first post you said that there are TVS without coax inputs. You are n'y so much playing devil's advocate as just not admitting that you made a mistake.

There are TVs without coaxial inputs. I didn't make a mistake. I was playing Devil's advocate by badgering you about all this. Just ruff'ling your feathers, that is all.

I didn't make a mistake and realize I made a mistake and try to cover it by saying that. If you haven't figured it out from previous posts, I enjoy getting people's panties in a bunch.

But you knew that already.

 

[Peter Parker]

I am sorry but a set without coax inputs---and by extension without a tuner is a monitor. That is the definition of a monitor. You can call it something else if you want to but that does not make it correct. My panties are not in a bunch I just realize that you were mistaken even if you perhaps won't admit it. But if you say you enjoy doing that to people well tha speaks volumes.

Bu we are not helping the OP or anyone else . I suggest that we bury he hatchet and I won't post again since there is no reason to do so.

 

[stevenl]

Geronimo is 100% correct, A Device without a Tuner is simply a monitor. It displays an image that another device gives it.

Also note BHN is not trying to confuse anyone. The OP was confused by a test that was done at 7:59 that the LOCAL channels were doing, and had 0 to do with BHN. BHNS website clearly shows what will and will not happen, and they have run commercials that tell customers "if you have BHN your all ready for 2009!"

 

[skottey]

Geronimo is 100% correct, A Device without a Tuner is simply a monitor. It displays an image that another device gives it.

Wait a minute. Let's back up a minute here.

Did I say anything about seeing a TV without a tuner? Or did I say I have seen a TV without a coaxial input????? I said I had a TV without a digital tuner but clearly stated it had an analog tuner.

I know that a display without a tuner is a monitor by definition. I didn't say I have seen a TV without a tuner. I said I have seen a TV without a coax input. There is a huge difference. A coax input is not required to call it a TV. A tuner is required to call it a TV.

Seriously, since when did this become I am wrong and back pedaling? Show me where I was wrong.

 

[skottey]

I am sorry but a set without coax inputs---and by extension without a tuner is a monitor. That is the definition of a monitor. You can call it something else if you want to but that does not make it correct. My panties are not in a bunch I just realize that you were mistaken even if you perhaps won't admit it. But if you say you enjoy doing that to people well tha speaks volumes.

Bu we are not helping the OP or anyone else . I suggest that we bury he hatchet and I won't post again since there is no reason to do so.

I've gone back and reread my own posts and do not see where I ever said a TV does not require a tuner. Please point out where I said that. I said a TV does not require a coaxial input. I didn't say a TV does not require a tuner. Yes, I do enjoy messing with people and arguing. Arguing is part of the fun of message boards by nature. But you are the one twisting my words in this post.

YES, I REALIZE A DISPLAY WITHOUT A TUNER IS NOT A TV. BUT THAT "BY EXTENSION" DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY REQUIRE THAT IT HAVE A COAX INPUT. Coaxial is not the only type of tuner in the world.

 

[stevenl]

Wait a minute. Let's back up a minute here.

Did I say anything about seeing a TV without a tuner? Or did I say I have seen a TV without a coaxial input????? I said I had a TV without a digital tuner but clearly stated it had an analog tuner.

I know that a display without a tuner is a monitor by definition. I didn't say I have seen a TV without a tuner. I said I have seen a TV without a coax input. There is a huge difference. A coax input is not required to call it a TV. A tuner is required to call it a TV.

Seriously, since when did this become I am wrong and back pedaling? Show me where I was wrong.

Could you find me a TV with a tuner that does not have a Coaxial input?

You did not say "The tv had no tuner" However without a Coax input there is a 99% chance the tv does not have a tuner. And there is a margin of error of +/- 1%

 

[skottey]

Could you find me a TV with a tuner that does not have a Coaxial input?

You did not say "The tv had no tuner" However without a Coax input there is a 99% chance the tv does not have a tuner. And there is a margin of error of +/- 1%

Hey look, when I was a kid (I am only 33 now) I had a black and white TV in my room that had two or four little screws for an external antenna connection. The TV had its own tuner with a dial, 2-13 and a second dial for UHF 14-69. When rigged to coax with a special RF adapter from Radioshack, I was able to get cable of all things on channels 2-13. This TV had a tuner, but could only be relied upon to tune the lower channels. This TV, while common in the 1950's and 1960's did not have a coaxial connection, yet it had a tuner. This TV was a TV, not a monitor. And if you are my age or older (my wife is only 28 and she had one too) you should remember having one of these old TVs in your room if you were lucky enough to have a TV in your room as a kid or teen.

My point being, that while coaxial may have been a universal tuner input type in the United States for antennas, cable, etc, over the last 20 or more, it does not mean it is the only connection type and is not required to have a tuner in the set. The connection type feeding the tuner, and the tuner itself, has made many changes over the years. So, when I read that there was no coaxial input on these newer TVs, my immediate thought was that there is probably another, newer standard connection type that I have not yet heard of. You don't honestly think that we will always use coaxial connections do you? That will change as certain as the day will turn to night. I am no expert in the field of coax, tuners, and up and coming connection types, but I would certainly not put it past them to come up with a new "protected" standard. Look at cablecard. That is one of the newer connection types. I am sure there are others on the way, as well as improvements to cablecard.

While I find it unusual that there is no coaxial input. I realize that my sense of normalcy isn't the standards bearer.

But back on what I first said, I doubt any store would make a big enough mistake to put a bunch of (computer) monitors out there on display with a big sign HDTV and think what they had on display were TVs. Usually, in the small TV section, they have a stack of boxes above or beneath the display, where if you want to buy one you can just grab your own box. Well, seeing as the display had six or seven "screens," wouldn't one think that a manager, worker, customer, SOMEBODY, would realize that none of the boxes said TV or HDTV and they all said things like "widescreen display monitor," "monitor," and anything else but TV? I find that very unlikely. Very unlikely.

Perhaps you are right that she didn't turn these TVs around far enough to see a coaxial input. That is a more likely scenerio than the storekeeper labeling seven models as TV when they had no tuner.

OK... I am ready to bury the hatchet now. haha. Please stop trying to throw egg on my face. This whole argument is stupid and neither of you have "proven me wrong."

 

[Scroll]

Some of the smaller LCD tvs (the HD ones) do not have coax inputs... I assume its because they figure you will use the HD inputs! A cheap way to get around this would be to use a VCR as the tuner, and use RCA cables to connect the VCR to the tv. (I recommend a VCR/DVD combo because who the hell has any vhs tapes anymore!?)

Actually I'm thinking why not use a government coupon and get a digital converter box such as the Digital Stream DTX9950 since it should be able to get the lower channels and has pass through. Since it has both coax and RCA out you're covered. And if BHN has an outage you can just connect it to rabbit ears. Well maybe.

 

[harshness]

Hey look, when I was a kid (I am only 33 now) I had a black and white TV in my room that had two or four little screws for an external antenna connection.

Let's fast forward to the reality of today and the aforementioned small LCD HDTV that we were talking about. Discussing your 6-10" B/W TV of yore (I bet you aren't using it anymore) is a red herring as it doesn't qualify as an LCD or an HDTV.

Cut your losses and start searching for currently offered HDTVs that don't have F connectors on them. As pointed out, your chances of finding one are likely two percent or less.

 

[stevenl]

Actually I'm thinking why not use a government coupon and get a digital converter box such as the Digital Stream DTX9950 since it should be able to get the lower channels and has pass through. Since it has both coax and RCA out you're covered. And if BHN has an outage you can just connect it to rabbit ears. Well maybe.

There is no reason not to get the coupon and get the near free box. In fact get two coupons (I think you can get a max of 2 per home) and get two boxes.. Get them while you can

 

[skottey]

Cut your losses and start searching for currently offered HDTVs that don't have F connectors on them. As pointed out, your chances of finding one are likely two percent or less.

haha.... I am not the OP. I have 3 HDTVs so I am all set. I have a first gen CRT HDTV 30" unit in my kid's room that I bought in 2002 or 2003. Boy is that thing a clunker. It still works, but unfortunately the red is f'd up for both component inputs (no HDMI). My kid doesn't care though, and didn't notice until I pointed out the lack of red. I think the problem is a result of him dropping the 135 lb TV off the stand (which he really did do).

My other two units work look a charm for OTA, DirecTV and BHN. I am all set. Good to go.

 

[skottey]

There is no reason not to get the coupon and get the near free box. In fact get two coupons (I think you can get a max of 2 per home) and get two boxes.. Get them while you can

StevenI-

I think these coupons were intended for low income non-cable or sat subscribers. For every coupon that is ordered is another government subsidy. Who do you think is paying for these things? We are as tax payers. Ordering unnecessary coupons with a "why not" attitude is just more government waste and is wrong.

I am of the opinion that these coupons should never have been produced at all. I know a lot of poverty living people that have full 1080p big screen TVs. I don't even have 1080p. My two newer TVs are both 1080i and I am happy with them both. But I can't tell you how many people I have seen with crappy salvation army furniture, dirty rugs and walls, smelly pets, and just outright squalor, but they have a nice $3500 full 1080P HDTV. (My non-working sister-in-law is a perfect example of this). These people generally have at least a basic cable package as well, if not an HD DVR (sister in law has an HD DVR too). Those sitting home without an HDTV can fork over the $50 or so for these converters. We as tax payers should not be paying for these coupons, and I don't think you should be encouraging people who don't need them to get them either.

 

[jcarrera]

I don't like much of anything my government is doing now, so anything I get from them I view as just taking some of my tax money back from them.

Years ago, I would have felt as you do, but the government is now so far out in left field (pun intended), I just want my money back. I can't keep them from taking it, but I CAN get as much back as possible. Yeah, I know if everybody does that, it just keeps getting worse and worse, but I am a short sighted thinker. Long term thinking didn't work to good for me--the country went to hell anyway.

 

[Tyralak]

?? If you "have BHN service, you won't be affected?"" Then why is BHN making such a big deal about it if it affects no one?

This "digital transition" has been the worst explained thing I've ever seen. I'll try to sum it up. What happens in 2009 is related ONLY to over the air broadcasts. If you get your television from an over the air antenna, you will need a converter box for older televisions. If you get your TV from cable or satellite, it has zero to do with you. The government wants to auction off a large portion of the broadcast spectrum, and for the broadcasters to still be able to operate, they need to make do with a fraction of the range they used to have. To make this work, they have to broadcast in digital. Cable and satellite are private networks, and can do whatever they want. Cable companies can broadcast analog until the heat death of the universe if they like. Some cable companies are converting a large portion of their analog channels to digital to save space and offer more HD and On-Demand content, but that's a different issue entirely.

 

[skottey]

Some cable companies are converting a large portion of their analog channels to digital to save space and offer more HD and On-Demand content, but that's a different issue entirely.

This is a wonderful thing. Hey, they need to compete with FIOS and satellite. The best thing they can do is greatly reduce (or get rid of preferred) the number of analog channels because of the bandwidth they use. Imagine the number of HD and SD digital channels they could offer if they had no analog to hog up the bandwidth. We could have a hundred or more additional HD channels (even without SDV), plus more bandwidth for Internet. I am all in favor of the cable companies scrapping analog, even if it means they are using trickery to confuse customers about the OTA analog conversion. I have met so many people that think their TV won't work after next year. Unfortunately, it is mainly older people, which is the bad news. They are the ones that will be hurt the most I suppose with all this confusion. But something needs to be done to move cable to digital only. Otherwise they really won't compete. We'll have FIOS soon here in St. Pete, and already have it in most of Tampa Bay. Who wants 80 stations of crummy analog when you can get 300 HD channels with FIOS (eventually)? BHN has to compete. It is change or die for BHN, when you think about it. Tricking consumers into thinking the OTA analog conversion will cut them off too is one way to reduce consumer dependency on analog without an STB.

 

[skottey]

I don't like much of anything my government is doing now, so anything I get from them I view as just taking some of my tax money back from them.

Years ago, I would have felt as you do, but the government is now so far out in left field (pun intended), I just want my money back. I can't keep them from taking it, but I CAN get as much back as possible. Yeah, I know if everybody does that, it just keeps getting worse and worse, but I am a short sighted thinker. Long term thinking didn't work to good for me--the country went to hell anyway.

I understand your viewpoint on this. Unfortunately, we are screwed if we all throw in the towel like that. Actually, it is our kids and their kids and their kids that are really in trouble.

 

[stevenl]

StevenI-

I think these coupons were intended for low income non-cable or sat subscribers. For every coupon that is ordered is another government subsidy. Who do you think is paying for these things? We are as tax payers. Ordering unnecessary coupons with a "why not" attitude is just more government waste and is wrong.

I am of the opinion that these coupons should never have been produced at all. I know a lot of poverty living people that have full 1080p big screen TVs. I don't even have 1080p. My two newer TVs are both 1080i and I am happy with them both. But I can't tell you how many people I have seen with crappy salvation army furniture, dirty rugs and walls, smelly pets, and just outright squalor, but they have a nice $3500 full 1080P HDTV. (My non-working sister-in-law is a perfect example of this). These people generally have at least a basic cable package as well, if not an HD DVR (sister in law has an HD DVR too). Those sitting home without an HDTV can fork over the $50 or so for these converters. We as tax payers should not be paying for these coupons, and I don't think you should be encouraging people who don't need them to get them either.

Any chance I can get my money back from uncle sam the better. It is mine after all

 

[skottey]

Any chance I can get my money back from uncle sam the better. It is mine after all

I understand what you are saying but we ultimately need to stop the spending in Washington. We are going to vote this country out of existence by way of handout spending someday. Free healthcare... free schools.... broken social security... bridge to nowhere.... the list goes on and on.... free digital to analog converters... yikes!

 

[jcarrera]

I totally agree with you. I haven't been able to stop it. Have you?