No analogue switch-off until equipment is 'affordable' - Page 2

zoombini · 13-10-2004, 08:40

Te refer back to the question about 4:3 tv's. There are a great many people that prefer to have a square shaped screen, to be able to see pictures in real size rather than compressed.

Myself, I prefer a square 28" TV to a widescreen one any day, I can see an awful lot more as the picture is bigger, superb for gaming.

Somehow I dont think that little extra at the sides that I'm supposed to get on a widescreen is worth it.

paulyoung666 · 13-10-2004, 08:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by zoombini

Te refer back to the question about 4:3 tv's. There are a great many people that prefer to have a square shaped screen, to be able to see pictures in real size rather than compressed.

Myself, I prefer a square 28" TV to a widescreen one any day, I can see an awful lot more as the picture is bigger, superb for gaming.

Somehow I dont think that little extra at the sides that I'm supposed to get on a widescreen is worth it.

i went round a mate of mine a while ago to watch a match on sky on his new 28" 4:3 tv and it looked so weird compared to my nice 28" 16:9

anyway enough of that from what i have seen of terrestrial digital , it was enough to put me off it for life

**Chris** · 13-10-2004, 09:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by dellwear

I must admit I was a little surprised at the OAP comments too, my grandparents (65 and 66) were the first to have freeview in our family!

Oi! I never said 'all OAPs are confused' - I said 'a lot of confused OAPs are going to find they have no TV' - that's completely different!

As a matter of fact Mrs T's grandfather (aged 85-ish) builds PCs for a hobby, so he certainly isn't confused. Other OAPs do find new technology to be confusing and intimidating. It is not ageist to make statements of fact like this.

orangebird · 13-10-2004, 09:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by zoombini

Te refer back to the question about 4:3 tv's. There are a great many people that prefer to have a square shaped screen, to be able to see pictures in real size rather than compressed.

Myself, I prefer a square 28" TV to a widescreen one any day, I can see an awful lot more as the picture is bigger, superb for gaming.

Somehow I dont think that little extra at the sides that I'm supposed to get on a widescreen is worth it.

Same here. I like my square telly. And until all programs are recorded and broadcast as 16:9, there's going to be a market for 4:3. I really don't see the lure of widescreen...

13-10-2004, 10:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by orangebird

Same here. I like my square telly. And until all programs are recorded and broadcast as 16:9, there's going to be a market for 4:3. I really don't see the lure of widescreen...

Dont forget to get up early in the mornings to put coal your car, light the fire and wait for the steam to rise before you can drive to work

Consumer pressure can speed things along, if no one buys 4:3 TV's the the manufacturers will stop making them which increases the pressure on the broadcasters to only broadcast in 16:9

orangebird · 13-10-2004, 10:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by gary_580

Dont forget to get up early in the mornings to put coal your car, light the fire and wait for the steam to rise before you can drive to work

Consumer pressure can speed things along, if no one buys 4:3 TV's the the manufacturers will stop making them which increases the pressure on the broadcasters to only broadcast in 16:9

But I don't like 16:9. Nor do I like the shape of the televisions. As I said, I like my square telly.

ian@huth · 13-10-2004, 10:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris T

Oi! I never said 'all OAPs are confused' - I said 'a lot of confused OAPs are going to find they have no TV' - that's completely different!

As a matter of fact Mrs T's grandfather (aged 85-ish) builds PCs for a hobby, so he certainly isn't confused. Other OAPs do find new technology to be confusing and intimidating. It is not ageist to make statements of fact like this.

Don't try to wriggle out of it Chris. The statements that I quoted were ageist and should have no place on these forums. It is wrong to single out a specific group of people even though you try to justify it by playing with your words. It's like a rascist who put a notice on his bus in America some years ago that said "this bus is for whites" and tried to justify this by saying that this didn't mean that it was only for whites.

ian@huth · 13-10-2004, 10:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by orangebird

But I don't like 16:9. Nor do I like the shape of the televisions. As I said, I like my square telly.

When we first got a widescreen TV it took a bit of getting used to and getting the right setup of both TV and digibox. Many widescreen TVs are not setup correctly, usually by the owner trying to make sure that there were no black edges in every picture on every station. Now that we have had one for a while a 4:3 TV looks odd. What I hate though is watching a football match on a widescreen TV that is televised in 4:3, particularly if it has coloured curtains down the sides.

orangebird · 13-10-2004, 10:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianathuth

When we first got a widescreen TV it took a bit of getting used to and getting the right setup of both TV and digibox. Many widescreen TVs are not setup correctly, usually by the owner trying to make sure that there were no black edges in every picture on every station. Now that we have had one for a while a 4:3 TV looks odd. What I hate though is watching a football match on a widescreen TV that is televised in 4:3, particularly if it has coloured curtains down the sides.

But my square telly fits better in my lounge, and too right, I don't want black edges on any of my tv stations. My mum has a widescreen, so does my sister, and I still hate them. It's not just a matter of getting used to it - I watch widescreen telly enough to know I don't like it.

13-10-2004, 10:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by orangebird

But my square telly fits better in my lounge, and too right, I don't want black edges on any of my tv stations. My mum has a widescreen, so does my sister, and I still hate them. It's not just a matter of getting used to it - I watch widescreen telly enough to know I don't like it.

i must agree its really annoying whilst there is no single standard. But its inevitable that one day you will have to move house to get a larger lounge

orangebird · 13-10-2004, 10:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by gary_580

i must agree its really annoying whilst there is no single standard. But its inevitable that one day you will have to move house to get a larger lounge

For the sake of watching telly? Not likely, I have a life

13-10-2004, 10:54

Sounds like an NTL Slogan

Not To your Liking - Get a life!!

SMHarman · 13-10-2004, 11:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris T

Oi! I never said 'all OAPs are confused' - I said 'a lot of confused OAPs are going to find they have no TV' - that's completely different!

As a matter of fact Mrs T's grandfather (aged 85-ish) builds PCs for a hobby, so he certainly isn't confused. Other OAPs do find new technology to be confusing and intimidating. It is not ageist to make statements of fact like this.

It is ageist, as some teenagers, thirty somethings, forty somethings etc will also find this new technology to be confusing and intimidating, just saying OAPs will find it confusing is ageist, saying many people will find the digital swichover confusing and intimidating is a statement of fact.

**Chris** · 13-10-2004, 12:37

Ian, SMH, I can't believe what I'm reading. How can you take a passing comment, made out of genuine concern for a well-known vulnerable group within our society, to be somehow -ist? Please get off the PC bandwagon and think logically about what you're suggesting.

It is absurd to suggest that you cannot say anything about any particular group within our society unless you also qualify it with a note that 'this applies to certain other people too'.

It is absurd to conclude that a failure to make a positive statement about something indicates that the person making the statement therefore holds the contrary, negative opinion.

By your logic, the chairty Help the Aged is ageist because it acknowledges concerns of old people while ignoring those of thirtysomethings and fortysomethings. Women's Aid is sexist because it provides shelter for abused women while failing to provide similar services for abused men.

"a lot of confused OAPs are going to find they have no TV" is a bald statement of fact. The fact that people other than OAPs may also be confused in no way detracts from the essential veracity of that statement. I make no apology for drawing attention to the fact that a great many old people are going to find they have no TV service when the analogue signal is switched off.

And as for this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianathuth

It's like a rascist who put a notice on his bus in America some years ago that said "this bus is for whites" and tried to justify this by saying that this didn't mean that it was only for whites.

I'm sorry Ian, that comment is beneath you, beneath contempt, and beneath me to even bother to address it.

SMHarman · 13-10-2004, 14:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris T

Ian, SMH, I can't believe what I'm reading. How can you take a passing comment, made out of genuine concern for a well-known vulnerable group within our society, to be somehow -ist? Please get off the PC bandwagon and think logically about what you're suggesting.

It is absurd to suggest that you cannot say anything about any particular group within our society unless you also qualify it with a note that 'this applies to certain other people too'.

It is absurd to conclude that a failure to make a positive statement about something indicates that the person making the statement therefore holds the contrary, negative opinion.

By your logic, the chairty Help the Aged is ageist because it acknowledges concerns of old people while ignoring those of thirtysomethings and fortysomethings. Women's Aid is sexist because it provides shelter for abused women while failing to provide similar services for abused men.

"a lot of confused OAPs are going to find they have no TV" is a bald statement of fact. The fact that people other than OAPs may also be confused in no way detracts from the essential veracity of that statement. I make no apology for drawing attention to the fact that a great many old people are going to find they have no TV service when the analogue signal is switched off.

And I make no apology for drawing attention to the fact that a great many younger technophobes will find they have no TV service when the analogue signal is switched off.

At work would you say "this task is difficult", or "this task is difficult for someone your age". New legislation will make the latter a real red card event. http://www.dti.gov.uk/er/equality/age.htm

I think there will be less OAPs without DTV come the switchover than other segments of the community. As TV watchers, they will see the advertising (which will also be on the public service channels), they will seek assistance from care givers and children to ensure that they are sorted out in time. It's the 40something technophobe who spends their evening down the pub that will one day switch the TV on to find no picture.

I do however agree that the PC gender neutral bandwagon with Cherie Booth QC at the helm is currently gathering speed and heading out of control.

As a certain famous columnist would say "We're all going to hell in a handcart!"