Yikes! Consumer Electronic Rip...
 

On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 10:13:24 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

Garth Almgren wrote:
Around 1/6/2006 10:11 AM, Eisboch wrote:

You can subscribe to it and it only costs
about 12.95 a month.

??

Man, Comcast needs some serious competition in our area! Basic analog
cable is $44.50(!) a month, and basic digital is about $60, plus the
cost of renting the set-top box.


When you have a non-competitive, unregulated industry, the consumer gets
reamed. The "cable" industry is one of the worst. Cable where we live is
outrageously expensive.

In our area, Comcast is pushing really hard to convert traditional
"Bell" phone customers to its phone service. But there's a real downside
to depending upon the cable company for phone service, and that is the
"reliability" factor. That traditional telco dialtone when you pick up
the phone is something upon which you can depend 99.9999% of the time.
Everywhere I have lived, the cable companies have "lost signal" during
thunderstorms, snowstorms, bright sunny days, et cetera, and when the
cable signal is lost, well, so is your cable-company supplied telephone
service.

Have you checked into the internet phone services at all? My neighbor has this one
and thinks it's fantastic. With a cell phone for emergencies, this looks like a cheap
way to go.

http://www.sunrocket.com/

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

Yikes! Consumer Electronic Rip...
 

On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 10:30:52 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 10:13:24 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

Garth Almgren wrote:
Around 1/6/2006 10:11 AM, Eisboch wrote:

You can subscribe to it and it only costs
about 12.95 a month.
??

Man, Comcast needs some serious competition in our area! Basic analog
cable is $44.50(!) a month, and basic digital is about $60, plus the
cost of renting the set-top box.

When you have a non-competitive, unregulated industry, the consumer gets
reamed. The "cable" industry is one of the worst. Cable where we live is
outrageously expensive.

In our area, Comcast is pushing really hard to convert traditional
"Bell" phone customers to its phone service. But there's a real downside
to depending upon the cable company for phone service, and that is the
"reliability" factor. That traditional telco dialtone when you pick up
the phone is something upon which you can depend 99.9999% of the time.
Everywhere I have lived, the cable companies have "lost signal" during
thunderstorms, snowstorms, bright sunny days, et cetera, and when the
cable signal is lost, well, so is your cable-company supplied telephone
service.

Have you checked into the internet phone services at all? My neighbor has this one
and thinks it's fantastic. With a cell phone for emergencies, this looks like a cheap
way to go.

http://www.sunrocket.com/


All the consumer internet phone services that come across cable to enter
your house have the same problem. Sunrocket uses broadband cable or
alternately DSL (that's on a phone line) to provide service.

When it comes to telephone service, I'm not looking for the "cheap" way
to go. I'm looking for the "when I pick up the phone there had damned
well be a dialtone" service. I get that with the telco.

Im my immediate neighorhood, cell service is sketchy.

With touchy cell phone service, the internet service may not be a good choice. I've
got to admit, Cox Cable hasn't been down at all for at least a couple years now. The
neighbor likes his Sunrocket plan a bunch. He's trying to talk me into it, and he
knows I'd give him a ration of **** if it were a problem.

I'm still thinking though.

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

Yikes! Consumer Electronic Rip...
 

There's a relatively new system called "Follow Me TV" available for
about $900 which does azimuth only. Supposedly it works well at
anchor. Haven't tried it but have gotten good reports.

http://www.followmetv.com/



RG wrote:
I suppose that would be one way to go, but I see two fundamental problems
with it. Since it only compensates for azimuth, it would be less effective
on smaller boats, which are more prone to pitch and roll, even at anchor.

It works OK. We have several friends with them. It does work
better at the dock, but it will work at anchor too.




The other problem I see is that this system is essentially a device to
rotate a standard mini-dish. This means that the ugly mini dish is
displayed on your boat in front of God and everybody to see.

Agreed. That's one reason why we don't have one.

The other reason why we don't have one is that we just plain
don't watch much TV, and a $19.95 extrnal antennae gets us
local channels well enough to catch the news & weather.

This may be heresy, but I'd rather read, play, or do boat
work than sit & watch TV.

.....At least with the big dollar
systems, the dish is fully enclosed in a plastic dome, which I think looks
much more appropriate on a boat. You could even pass it off to the
unknowing as some sort of sophisticated satellite communications system.


And you could put a missile launcher on the aft deck to
complete the effect.

Fair Skies
Doug King

Yikes! Consumer Electronic Rip...
 

Around 1/6/2006 9:33 AM, wrote:

You probably should go back to rabbit ears and a black and white tv
using your reasoning.

I'd go back to rabbit ears too, but only with an HDTV. :)

http://antennaweb.org

--
~/Garth - 1966 Glastron V-142 Skiflite: "Blue-Boat"
"There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing about in boats." -- Kenneth Grahame
~~ Ventis secundis, tene cursum ~~

Yikes! Consumer Electronic Rip...
 

Harry Krause wrote:
Don White wrote:

JimH wrote:

"Don White" wrote in message
...

JimH wrote:

"Don White" wrote in message
...


Eisboch wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...



JimH wrote:



I guess so. We do not have digital cable or HD tv sets so the
S-video works just fine for us.


Comcast hasn't gone to "digital" cable in your part of the country?


Many subscribers, me included up until a few days ago, just have
a basic cable service meaning there is no cable box. The cable
is simply hooked up to the VHF antenna input on the TV and you
use the TV tuner to choose the channels. In this case, all
channels are analog.

Eisboch

We updated a year ago to digital.
Getting ready for the big shift to HDTV in the near future.
(read:...saving for the TV)


When all channels in the US go digital (I believe in 2008 or 2009)
there will be no need to upgrade your TV's to HD if you have cable.

Huh?
HD and digital are two different things.


I never said otherwise Don.

here's what Consumer Reports says about HD vs standard def vs ED

Image quality: HD vs. standard definition

High definition is the way to go if you want the best TV viewing
possible. The picture quality can be stunning, especially on a large,
wide-screen set. HD is a digital-TV format that can offer
almost-lifelike clarity. That’s because HD images contain more and
finer detail than other formats. In technical terms, they have higher
resolution, or more picture elements making up each image. HD images
are digital, usually with definition of either 1080i (1,080 lines
drawn on-screen in an odd/even, or interlaced, pattern) or 720p (720
lines scanned in one sweep, or progressively). You can get HD
capability in all types of TVs: picture-tube sets, LCD, plasma,
rear-projection, and front-projection. However, simply buying an HDTV
doesn't get you HD. You need programming that’s created in HD and
transmitted the same way, plus a digital tuner (usually supplied by
special cable and satellite boxes) that can receive these signals. See
our HDTV report for more details.

Standard definition, the type of TV we've watched for years, has much
less detail. These are analog signals with resolution of 480i (480
lines drawn onscreen in an interlaced pattern), the format in which TV
content is delivered over regular analog broadcasts and basic
(non-digital) cable. On the best TVs, the picture quality can be very
good or even excellent--but it doesn't compare to the best that HD can
offer. Most standard-definition TVs now on the market are picture-tube
sets; some LCDs of this type are also available.

Enhanced definition falls in between standard and high definition. ED
signals are digital, with resolution of 480p (480 lines scanned
progressively). This is equivalent to DVD quality, which is a little
better than standard definition but not as good as high definition.
Some ED sets can decode HD signals when they're connected to a digital
tuner. However, they have to convert them to a lower resolution that
they can display, so the picture quality won't match that of true HD.
Still, it can be quite impressive. Most ED sets now on the market are
either LCD or plasma TVs.



Don, everything looks better on a good HDTV, but...

wait until you look at a science or nature program filmed in and
broadcast in HD. There are a few "inHD" channels, and when I watch TV,
those are the ones I watch. They're just spectacular, no other way to
describe it.

I second that one. Like I said before, I can't take take my eyes off
Discovery HD. I watched a show about plate tectonics - I have an MSc.
in geology and this was pure freshman stuff, but it was SO BEAUTIFUL.

Stella

Yikes! Consumer Electronic Rip...
 

Harry Krause wrote:
Black Dog wrote:

Harry Krause wrote:

Don White wrote:

JimH wrote:

"Don White" wrote in message
...

JimH wrote:

"Don White" wrote in message
...


Eisboch wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...



JimH wrote:



I guess so. We do not have digital cable or HD tv sets so
the S-video works just fine for us.


Comcast hasn't gone to "digital" cable in your part of the
country?


Many subscribers, me included up until a few days ago, just
have a basic cable service meaning there is no cable box. The
cable is simply hooked up to the VHF antenna input on the TV
and you use the TV tuner to choose the channels. In this case,
all channels are analog.

Eisboch

We updated a year ago to digital.
Getting ready for the big shift to HDTV in the near future.
(read:...saving for the TV)


When all channels in the US go digital (I believe in 2008 or
2009) there will be no need to upgrade your TV's to HD if you
have cable.

Huh?
HD and digital are two different things.


I never said otherwise Don.

here's what Consumer Reports says about HD vs standard def vs ED

Image quality: HD vs. standard definition

High definition is the way to go if you want the best TV viewing
possible. The picture quality can be stunning, especially on a
large, wide-screen set. HD is a digital-TV format that can offer
almost-lifelike clarity. That’s because HD images contain more and
finer detail than other formats. In technical terms, they have
higher resolution, or more picture elements making up each image. HD
images are digital, usually with definition of either 1080i (1,080
lines drawn on-screen in an odd/even, or interlaced, pattern) or
720p (720 lines scanned in one sweep, or progressively). You can get
HD capability in all types of TVs: picture-tube sets, LCD, plasma,
rear-projection, and front-projection. However, simply buying an
HDTV doesn't get you HD. You need programming that’s created in HD
and transmitted the same way, plus a digital tuner (usually supplied
by special cable and satellite boxes) that can receive these
signals. See our HDTV report for more details.

Standard definition, the type of TV we've watched for years, has
much less detail. These are analog signals with resolution of 480i
(480 lines drawn onscreen in an interlaced pattern), the format in
which TV content is delivered over regular analog broadcasts and
basic (non-digital) cable. On the best TVs, the picture quality can
be very good or even excellent--but it doesn't compare to the best
that HD can offer. Most standard-definition TVs now on the market
are picture-tube sets; some LCDs of this type are also available.

Enhanced definition falls in between standard and high definition.
ED signals are digital, with resolution of 480p (480 lines scanned
progressively). This is equivalent to DVD quality, which is a little
better than standard definition but not as good as high definition.
Some ED sets can decode HD signals when they're connected to a
digital tuner. However, they have to convert them to a lower
resolution that they can display, so the picture quality won't match
that of true HD. Still, it can be quite impressive. Most ED sets now
on the market are either LCD or plasma TVs.



Don, everything looks better on a good HDTV, but...

wait until you look at a science or nature program filmed in and
broadcast in HD. There are a few "inHD" channels, and when I watch
TV, those are the ones I watch. They're just spectacular, no other
way to describe it.


I second that one. Like I said before, I can't take take my eyes off
Discovery HD. I watched a show about plate tectonics - I have an MSc.
in geology and this was pure freshman stuff, but it was SO BEAUTIFUL.

Stella



I wonder if it was the same one I saw recently. Did it have a segment
about "the next big one" knocking part of the Pacific NW into the ocean?
No wonder boats are selling in Seattle!

Discovery HD is *the best* choice on TV.

Probably the same show. I didn't see the whole thing as the hubby had
the remote and the HD sports channels were beckoning. I do remember a
volcanologist running around grabbing fresh lava in somewhere in Hawaii.

I have a bunch of friends in Comox BC (on Vancouver Island) who keep
ribbing me about my, shall we say, *limited* sailing season. Heehee,
yeah the boat's in the driveway half the year, but I don't need
hurricane, earthquake, tsunami or health insurance. And I kind of like
it like that.

Stella