[NCLUG] MythTV Questions

[Chad Perrin]

On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 12:11:18AM -0700, Sean Reifschneider wrote:
> Chad Perrin wrote:
> >obsolete.  *Someone* is going to have to serve those who can't afford to
> >plunk down six hundred bucks on a new TV.
> 
> $600?!?  It's not exactly fair to say that nobody buying a new TV can buy 
> anything less than a 32" LCD (including digital tuner and HD resolution, 
> though I think it's 720p, $600 from Wal-Mart).  They also list a 24" tube 
> TV for under $200 with a built-in digital tuner, though it's a SD set.

The two TVs I have here are 32" and 26" (viewable), respectively.  Are
you saying I should just buy a 12" HDTV and throw these away when I have
more important things to spend money on?


> 
> Anyway, my understanding is that there are "set top boxes" that will be 
> given away by the government to keple people hooked up with the source of 
> their addiction.  These will allow traditional TVs to work with the digital.

That's not something I knew about.  It makes things theoretically
possible, but it's all still beyond stupid.


> 
> See, it's not SD that's going away, it's analog broadcast.  This is why 
> cable is exempt, it's the broadcast spectrum that's trying to be 
> reclaimed...  So, in Feb 2009 you'll still be able to get SD content over 
> your digital tuner. You just need the digital tuner or the set-top box.  
> Now, over digital they'll also be able to broadcast HD content, but even 
> then they're talking about dumbing it down to lower resolutions, much like 
> some of the satellite providers are doing right now, so that channels can 
> use less bandwidth.
> 
> I deliberately bought a TV without a tuner when I got my latest.  I'm not 
> really interested in watching "push TV".  And besides, if you go with cable 
> or satellite, you probably will have their set-top box anyway with DVR if 
> you decide to go that direction...

I have a Comcast DVR right now.  It sucks, and costs me more money in the
long run than a MythTV setup should cost.

-- 
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Paul Graham: "Real ugliness is not harsh-looking syntax, but having to
build programs out of the wrong concepts."