There are less than 90 days until the US ceases analog TV broadcasting. I have written often about this subject over the last year but the questions that I continue to get reinforce the fact that many are still somewhat confused about what this change will mean to them.
To summarize … at midnight February 17, 2009, all full power TV stations in the US will turn off all analog TV transmitters and continue broadcasting using only digital signals. For most TV viewers this will be a non-event since most receive TV using cable or satellite services. These services will do all the necessary conversion allowing you to continue to use your old analog TV set. You need do nothing!
For those who receive TV using an antenna, there are three options available. You can subscribe to cable or satellite. You can purchase a new TV set with a digital tuner built in. You can purchase a DTV converter for your analog set.
As we get closer to the deadline I have noticed more and more disinformation and half truths coming from some unscrupulous retailers. Several people have related to me that a salesperson has insisted that they must purchase an expensive high definition TV or they will lose all TV this February. I have also seen some direct mail pieces from cable and satellite companies that lead the reader to believe that only cable and satellite provide digital programming and you must upgrade to the digital or HD service before February 17th.
Both the statements are wrong. You don’t have to spend a lot of money for a digital TV set. There are sets available for less the $200. While these inexpensive sets will not have giant screens and they will not be high definition, they will receive all the digital broadcasts and in most cases be superior to any analog set.
If you subscribe to a cable or satellite service today, you do not need to upgrade to a more expensive tier of service unless you want to have an HD service. If you are using your existing analog set, there is no reason to upgrade. You analog TV can’t display HD.
For those who do get a DTV converter and continue to use an antenna, you will have access to many more local channels and the picture on your analog set will never look better. The converters were hard to find last summer but my recent visit to several big box retailers found many selections available for about $59.00 or less. It is not too late to get two $40 coupons from the Federal Government. Just call 888-388-2009 or go to the web www.dtv2009.gov.
A little preparation now will assure a smooth transition next February.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Monday, November 17, 2008
Just Don't Use It!
I don’t often use this column to express my personal gripes. After all, what do you care what I like or don’t like? The purpose of these weekly missives has and will continue to be to provide straight forward information about technology. Once in a while a personal gripe and some helpful technology hints come together. This is one of those times.
The proliferation of communication technologies over the past decade has been nothing short of extraordinary. Cell phones are everywhere. Some would say they surface in too many places. Email is now as much a part of the daily routine for the occupant of the college dorm room as it is at the retirement community.
For many people these tools are used wisely and effectively. However, there is a small group of people who drive me nuts, not because they use the technology too much but because they don’t use it.
For sure, I think everyone has the right to refuse to use email or a cell phone. Hey, this is the USA isn’t it. I respect these people, whatever their reasons might be. In fact, I applaud those who think a hand written note or a personal visit is better than a … “How r u? I b hm @ 5. lov j” email or instant message.
My gripe is that some people will tell you that they have email or a cell phone and give you the address or number. The presumption is that if they give you this information, they actually use it. WRONG!
A minority for sure, there are people who check their email once a month at the most. Others still haven’t figured out how to retrieve voice mail from their cell phone account. Again this is their prerogative. The problem is that the person who left the email or voice mail doesn’t know this. So that invite to dinner or the movies goes unanswered. The sender is in a quandary as to whether they are being ignored or forgotten.
My suggestion is that there is no reason to feel compelled to use these technologies. No one will feel that you are less intelligent or un-American. When someone asks if you have email or a cell, just say no!
The proliferation of communication technologies over the past decade has been nothing short of extraordinary. Cell phones are everywhere. Some would say they surface in too many places. Email is now as much a part of the daily routine for the occupant of the college dorm room as it is at the retirement community.
For many people these tools are used wisely and effectively. However, there is a small group of people who drive me nuts, not because they use the technology too much but because they don’t use it.
For sure, I think everyone has the right to refuse to use email or a cell phone. Hey, this is the USA isn’t it. I respect these people, whatever their reasons might be. In fact, I applaud those who think a hand written note or a personal visit is better than a … “How r u? I b hm @ 5. lov j” email or instant message.
My gripe is that some people will tell you that they have email or a cell phone and give you the address or number. The presumption is that if they give you this information, they actually use it. WRONG!
A minority for sure, there are people who check their email once a month at the most. Others still haven’t figured out how to retrieve voice mail from their cell phone account. Again this is their prerogative. The problem is that the person who left the email or voice mail doesn’t know this. So that invite to dinner or the movies goes unanswered. The sender is in a quandary as to whether they are being ignored or forgotten.
My suggestion is that there is no reason to feel compelled to use these technologies. No one will feel that you are less intelligent or un-American. When someone asks if you have email or a cell, just say no!
Monday, November 10, 2008
Blu-Ray May Be Blue Sky for Holiday Retailers
Now that the battle between the new High Definition DVD formats is over, some executives at Sony may feel they may have won the battle but are losing the war.
I wrote a year ago about the two competing HD DVD formats and how the industry may be headed for another stalemate similar to the Betamax™ vs VHS wars of the 1970s. There were large companies lining up behind each format with Apple, Panasonic and Sony in the Blu-Ray™ camp and Microsoft, Toshiba and NEC siding with HD-DVD™. The good news is that the HD-DVD™ camp threw in the towel and now only Blu-Ray™ remains. Good for the consumer.
Like many new electronic gadgets coming to market the first models of the Blu-Ray™ DVD players were expensive and only the early adopters purchased them. Manufacturers like Sony were looking to this upcoming holiday season to firmly establish the format as the new “must have” Christmas gift. They figured that with more and more households buying new high definition TV sets, it was only logical that these same households would want to see DVD programming displayed on those sets with the same clarity and wide screen impact that only a new Blu-Ray™ player could provide.
Seems that someone forgot to tell the consumer. The sales of Blu-Ray™ DVD players have been well behind projections forcing retailers to deeply discount the price as we head into the holiday shopping season. A recent article in the Wall Street Journal predicted that some stores may offer sub $150 models right after Thanksgiving.
So is this the time to buy? There is no question that the Blu-Ray™ DVD played on a large High Definition TV set is awesome. You must keep in mind however that the current pricing of Blu-Ray™ DVDs is about double of the standard DVD. So a movie could set you back more than $30. And that is without the popcorn!
Even if you have a new HD TV, you might want to consider a standard DVD player that has “up conversion.” Using “electronic magic” these machines make a standard DVD movie look more like a HD movie. These players can be found for about $100.
If you have not purchased a HD set then there is no reason to buy a Blu-Ray™ player or an up converting DVD player right now. The quality of picture from a Blu-Ray™ DVD on your standard definition TV will not be noticeably better. Save your money and wait until they drop in price so that they are displayed next to the chewing gum at the check out counter.
For those who are considering a Blu-Ray™ player you will find that the format offers much more than just better pictures and sound. Some Blu-Ray™ programming is enhanced by connecting the DVD player with the Internet and thus making the program interactive. This experience is similar to playing online or using devices like the Xbox™ or Wii™. Of course, to use these features you must have a high speed Internet connection like RoadRunner™ or Cincinnati Bell DSL.
I wrote a year ago about the two competing HD DVD formats and how the industry may be headed for another stalemate similar to the Betamax™ vs VHS wars of the 1970s. There were large companies lining up behind each format with Apple, Panasonic and Sony in the Blu-Ray™ camp and Microsoft, Toshiba and NEC siding with HD-DVD™. The good news is that the HD-DVD™ camp threw in the towel and now only Blu-Ray™ remains. Good for the consumer.
Like many new electronic gadgets coming to market the first models of the Blu-Ray™ DVD players were expensive and only the early adopters purchased them. Manufacturers like Sony were looking to this upcoming holiday season to firmly establish the format as the new “must have” Christmas gift. They figured that with more and more households buying new high definition TV sets, it was only logical that these same households would want to see DVD programming displayed on those sets with the same clarity and wide screen impact that only a new Blu-Ray™ player could provide.
Seems that someone forgot to tell the consumer. The sales of Blu-Ray™ DVD players have been well behind projections forcing retailers to deeply discount the price as we head into the holiday shopping season. A recent article in the Wall Street Journal predicted that some stores may offer sub $150 models right after Thanksgiving.
So is this the time to buy? There is no question that the Blu-Ray™ DVD played on a large High Definition TV set is awesome. You must keep in mind however that the current pricing of Blu-Ray™ DVDs is about double of the standard DVD. So a movie could set you back more than $30. And that is without the popcorn!
Even if you have a new HD TV, you might want to consider a standard DVD player that has “up conversion.” Using “electronic magic” these machines make a standard DVD movie look more like a HD movie. These players can be found for about $100.
If you have not purchased a HD set then there is no reason to buy a Blu-Ray™ player or an up converting DVD player right now. The quality of picture from a Blu-Ray™ DVD on your standard definition TV will not be noticeably better. Save your money and wait until they drop in price so that they are displayed next to the chewing gum at the check out counter.
For those who are considering a Blu-Ray™ player you will find that the format offers much more than just better pictures and sound. Some Blu-Ray™ programming is enhanced by connecting the DVD player with the Internet and thus making the program interactive. This experience is similar to playing online or using devices like the Xbox™ or Wii™. Of course, to use these features you must have a high speed Internet connection like RoadRunner™ or Cincinnati Bell DSL.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Elections In The Digital Age
Now that the elections are finally behind us, at least for a week or two before someone announces intentions for the 2012 Presidential race, I though we could reflect on the impact that modern technology has played on the process and in some cases the results. The debates and rallies of political candidates are nothing new but the universal 24/7 access to what they say and do and promise and wear and look like is nothing short of extraordinary.
In the mid 1850s when Abraham Lincoln and Steven Douglas met to debate while seeking the US Senatorial seat for Illinois, relatively few were in attendance even though the two men agreed to travel to seven communities throughout Illinois. Most voters would hear about the debates via newspaper reports. The dynamics of “how” something was said was of course missing in these reports of “what” was said. Some would say this is better since a candidate’s good looks and/or idiosyncratic mannerisms did not affect the reader’s ability to critically examine the content. The quintessential example in the more recent past is of course Richard Nixon’s eschewing the use of make up at the Kennedy / Nixon televised debates of the 1960s.
Jumping to the recent Presidential election, the landscape has radically changed. For the last three years most every thing a candidate said, wore, ate, laughed at, looked at, traveled on or through has been shared with the world. Modern communications technology has been part and parcel of this election more than any in the past.
Time was when a candidate once, off the podium, could relax, perhaps even look a bit tired while back stage. Not now. Small format video cameras and recorders are on constant vigil to capture some tidbit of “news” to feed the voracious appetite of the 24/7 news cycle. And it is not just the professional journalists and news gathering organizations that chronicle the every move the of the candidates. Watching a political rally on television, executives from Sony or Cannon must feel great about the plethora of personal video cameras in the hands of the audience. The number of those cameras pales in comparison to the number of the ubiquitous camera phones on the belts and in the purses of most everyone in the audience. It is inconceivable that any action or inaction on the part of the candidates will escape world-wide distribution on YouTube.
The campaigns themselves used new technologies and online sites to full advantage. Over and above the www.johnmcaine.com and www.barakobama.com, any candidate worth his Blackberry has a MySpace page, a FaceBook page and email lists that go on forever. The use of targeted email has resulted in millions of dollars coming into the coffers of both major candidates.
As the new President moves from running for the office of President to running the office of the President it will be interesting to see how these same technologies will be used to maintain and expand communications with the electorate.
In the mid 1850s when Abraham Lincoln and Steven Douglas met to debate while seeking the US Senatorial seat for Illinois, relatively few were in attendance even though the two men agreed to travel to seven communities throughout Illinois. Most voters would hear about the debates via newspaper reports. The dynamics of “how” something was said was of course missing in these reports of “what” was said. Some would say this is better since a candidate’s good looks and/or idiosyncratic mannerisms did not affect the reader’s ability to critically examine the content. The quintessential example in the more recent past is of course Richard Nixon’s eschewing the use of make up at the Kennedy / Nixon televised debates of the 1960s.
Jumping to the recent Presidential election, the landscape has radically changed. For the last three years most every thing a candidate said, wore, ate, laughed at, looked at, traveled on or through has been shared with the world. Modern communications technology has been part and parcel of this election more than any in the past.
Time was when a candidate once, off the podium, could relax, perhaps even look a bit tired while back stage. Not now. Small format video cameras and recorders are on constant vigil to capture some tidbit of “news” to feed the voracious appetite of the 24/7 news cycle. And it is not just the professional journalists and news gathering organizations that chronicle the every move the of the candidates. Watching a political rally on television, executives from Sony or Cannon must feel great about the plethora of personal video cameras in the hands of the audience. The number of those cameras pales in comparison to the number of the ubiquitous camera phones on the belts and in the purses of most everyone in the audience. It is inconceivable that any action or inaction on the part of the candidates will escape world-wide distribution on YouTube.
The campaigns themselves used new technologies and online sites to full advantage. Over and above the www.johnmcaine.com and www.barakobama.com, any candidate worth his Blackberry has a MySpace page, a FaceBook page and email lists that go on forever. The use of targeted email has resulted in millions of dollars coming into the coffers of both major candidates.
As the new President moves from running for the office of President to running the office of the President it will be interesting to see how these same technologies will be used to maintain and expand communications with the electorate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)