HDTV

[dpac 0]

So I am looking at getting a hd tv, one I am looking at is a 50inch dlp projection screen. Good price, just dont know much about the hdtv world. What is dlp? and is projection good? Just starting to do my research but I thought I would check out this fountain of wisdom first.

Thanks for any help.

[Black Lushus 0]

projection TVs are only as good as the amount of HD channels your cable company provides...I have a 52" widescreen projection, the HD channels are great (about 15 channels), the regular digital and analog (especially analog) channels are nothing special.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

So I am looking at getting a hd tv, one I am looking at is a 50inch dlp projection screen. Good price, just dont know much about the hdtv world. What is dlp? and is projection good? Just starting to do my research but I thought I would check out this fountain of wisdom first.

Thanks for any help.

 

DLP is a projection technology that uses a bunch of really tiny mirrors to reflect light which produces the image. Texas Instruments is behind the chip that has all the tiny mirrors on it, and from what I've heard the chip itself is rather reliable. DLP's are sharper and brighter than LCD/Plasmas, and produce better lights/darks as well (although still not CRT calibre on the blacks).

 

I'd advise however, that if you plan to buy a DLP, for you to go to a store and look at the exact model you plan to buy. Theres a very small population of people who get whats called "The rainbow effect" when viewing DLP tvs, which is when you can see a rainbow of colors in light areas of the screen. Its caused by how the TV creates the images, and if it does affect you, would pretty much make anything onthe TV unwatchable, give you headaches etc..(you should get anyone else who you think might watch the TV to come with you as well).

 

I would easily reccommend a DLP over an LCD/Plasma if money isn't an option and you want a fairly large TV. They are still pricey with LCDs and Plasmas dropping in price a bit as of late. But you dont get the potential for burn in on Plasma or odd viewing angle problems with LCDs on DLPs, and the picture is easily superior to LCD and Plasma.

 

Also keep in mind that you'll need a Cable/Satellite Box capable of HD for whatever TV you buy, although you might luck out and get a TV with a built in tuner for over the air HD if you have stations in your area doing HD. Id also look to try and get a model with 2 DVI/HDMI ports so that you would be able to hook up a HD box and future HD-DVD players (Im sorta paying for this one, as Im having to run my HD Directvo off of Component, which provides a decent picture but not as good as HDMI) so that I can run my upconverting DVD recorder over HDMI cause it only upconverts over HDMI and I only have 1 HDMI port, but 2 component ports.

[dpac 0]

well thanks for the advice. I use Time Warner and they will install the hd box free of charge. So me thinks I will go ahead with this one.

[SuperJerk 0]

projection TVs are only as good as the amount of HD channels your cable company provides...I have a 52" widescreen projection, the HD channels are great (about 15 channels), the regular digital and analog (especially analog) channels are nothing special.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

 

People are so hard-headed about this. I know about 4 people besides myself who have an HD-TV, but I'm the only one with HD service. Hell, most of them still hook up their DVD player with regular yellow RCA cables.

 

My parents told me they recently bought a 44" plasma screen. These are the same people who had trouble remembering they had to turn the TV to an "INPUT" channel to watch a DVD (using the DVD player I bought them last Christmas). Anyhow, my stepdad want to hook this $3000 technological marvel up to a VCR/DVD combo so there will be "less wires". If you want less wires, you shouldn't have bought something with 1080i resolution. They probably think you can push an HD signal through a coaxial cable. This is almost as bad as my sister-in-law who can’t tell the difference between 16:9 and 4:3 images unless someone points it out to her. She and her idiot husband paid $2300 for a 44" Toshiba HD-TV a couple of years ago and watch the same shitty TV stations they used to watch on their old TV.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Well, to be fair, the cable/sat companies as well as the TV manufacturers and the retailers have done a pretty terrible job overall explaining the true benefits of HD. Most people just think that they're getting a wide screen and that it will automatically make all their TV shows "HD digital" or whatever. Couple that with the general lack of HD programming overall, and it's a mess right now.

 

Hey, remember when Jan. 1 of 2007 was supposed to be the final conversion date for DTV? Now it's 2009 or something...wonder when we'll finally get the full DTV signals that were promised to us.

[Black Lushus 0]

shit, I'm still waiting for Cox Cable to drop all their analog channels and make them digital (Channels 1 thru 70)...that was 4 years ago when the cable guy told me that.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Well, to be fair, the cable/sat companies as well as the TV manufacturers and the retailers have done a pretty terrible job overall explaining the true benefits of HD. Most people just think that they're getting a wide screen and that it will automatically make all their TV shows "HD digital" or whatever. Couple that with the general lack of HD programming overall, and it's a mess right now.

 

Hey, remember when Jan. 1 of 2007 was supposed to be the final conversion date for DTV? Now it's 2009 or something...wonder when we'll finally get the full DTV signals that were promised to us.

 

The only thing disapearing in February of 2009 (right after the Super Bowl, but before the Oscars/March Madness) is the analog signals broadcast over the air. There will still continue to be plenty of non-hd channels via cable, mainly because A)providers have limited bandwith to allocate towards HD channels and B)Networks will have to be convinced its worth their money to upgrade to HD. Even when the the analog OTA feeds are shut down, there will still be a majority of people who still will be using analog tvs via cable/satellite and won't be able to recieve HD programming.

 

Also...if you think its confusing now trying to explain to people why they aren't watching HD programming just because they have an HD TV but no HD capable box for HD programming, I cant imagine trying to explain 480i/480p/720i/720p/1080i/1080i/1080p. I also dont want to think about the fact that they will complain about the black bars on the sides of their TVs when programming is in 4:3 non-HD (or in some cases HD) just like they do on widescreen DVDs. TNT's HD channel already pisses me off because they show a lot of their shows that weren't in widescreen/HD to start with in whats commonly refered to as "Stretch-o-Vision" where they stretch the picture to fill an entire 16:9 screen instead of leaving it in its original 4:3 aspect ratio and other channels are going to follow suit. Id rather see the bars on the sides of the screen then stretch the picture to make everything look bloated.

 

As far as HD programming...I know that this year there have already been a couple new HD channels launched (MHD - MTV:HD and National Geographic HD) and there are plans for at least two more (HGTV/FoodNetwork HD and SleuthHD).

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Well, I think the answer to that is simply that the "regular" versions of the cable channels will eventually be dropped...ie TNT-HD will simply become TNT, etc., thus freeing up more bandwidth again. People with regular analog TVs will have to watch down-converted versions (through a cable box or converter box) of those channels.

 

I think we make it sound more complicated than it really is. Basically what the average joe schmuck-face needs to understand, is that they shouldn't buy an analog TV ever again (and the government has even come out and said this), but if they don't want to get a digital TV set, they will need a converter box if they don't have cable or satellite (and this only applies to like, fifteen percent of the country).

[Guest wildpegasus]

Man, it wasn't too long ago when all we had in the house was a small black and white, 3 channels one which was French and rabbit ears.

 

Most people don't understand all this new Tv technology or care to keep up with it. I know I don't and I'm constantly having to explain stuff to other people.

 

WP -- Perfectly happy with no cable (because I can watch it elsewhere!) and no channels (unless I use my NES adaptor which somehow extreamly slightly brings in CBC) and a very small broken down Tv that only changes channels via remote control. I think people are getting too spoiled in this day and age with all this new technology.

 

WP -- Also can't afford a new TV

[Guest Vitamin X]

Also...if you think its confusing now trying to explain to people why they aren't watching HD programming just because they have an HD TV but no HD capable box for HD programming, I cant imagine trying to explain 480i/480p/720i/720p/1080i/1080i/1080p. I also dont want to think about the fact that they will complain about the black bars on the sides of their TVs when programming is in 4:3 non-HD (or in some cases HD) just like they do on widescreen DVDs. TNT's HD channel already pisses me off because they show a lot of their shows that weren't in widescreen/HD to start with in whats commonly refered to as "Stretch-o-Vision" where they stretch the picture to fill an entire 16:9 screen instead of leaving it in its original 4:3 aspect ratio and other channels are going to follow suit. Id rather see the bars on the sides of the screen then stretch the picture to make everything look bloated.

 

It's quite simple explaining the resolution. Here, I'll do it.

 

On any TV, the way the image is scanned/projected onto your screen is either interlaced or progressive. In interlaced scanning, the image is scanned line by line like this:

TV __________

1 |

 

3 |

 

5 |___________|

(and so on and so forth-excuse the shitty drawing)

With the odd-numbered lines being displayed first, then the even numbered lines coming afterwards. Standard NTSC TVs use 480i, which means 480 lines interlaced. Progressive scanning means that instead of scanning every other line, it scans every line possible in a row. PAL TVs use up to 625p (625 lines progressive), so they tend to have slightly better resolution than NTSC signals.

 

The HDTV standard is 1080i/1080p. I have a 28" widescreen 1080i TV, with built-in HD inputs, it's a Sanyo from Walmart that cost me about $480 or so, but I'm very pleased with the quality considering the price.

 

Here's a piece of advice. Don't waste your money on a plasma TV. While they look slick and all, they have practically no durability whatsoever, and it's incredible how consumers nowadays look at the price tag and assume it's the best thing out there. Hell, even worse when they're financing the damn thing- their plasma TVs will burn out by the time they're done paying them off.

 

LCD is probably better, but even then it's only good if you intend to also use it as a second computer monitor. Eventually I'm going to be getting myself this sexy, beautiful thing hopefully by the end of the year for such a purpose. I intend to do some digital video editing at home using a Powerbook (or a Macbook Pro if only they'd make Final Cut Pro compatible with it).

 

My parents told me they recently bought a 44" plasma screen. These are the same people who had trouble remembering they had to turn the TV to an "INPUT" channel to watch a DVD (using the DVD player I bought them last Christmas). Anyhow, my stepdad want to hook this $3000 technological marvel up to a VCR/DVD combo so there will be "less wires". If you want less wires, you shouldn't have bought something with 1080i resolution. They probably think you can push an HD signal through a coaxial cable. This is almost as bad as my sister-in-law who can’t tell the difference between 16:9 and 4:3 images unless someone points it out to her. She and her idiot husband paid $2300 for a 44" Toshiba HD-TV a couple of years ago and watch the same shitty TV stations they used to watch on their old TV.

Heh, and these are the same kind of people who probably sat there and thought "OH MY GOD WOW LOOK AT THE DIFFERENCE! THAT WAS REALLY WORTH THE 2 AND A HALF GRAND!" even though there's not a difference.

 

People are such fucking sheep. This much I've learned from being an advertising double major.

[Guest wildpegasus]

Also...if you think its confusing now trying to explain to people why they aren't watching HD programming just because they have an HD TV but no HD capable box for HD programming, I cant imagine trying to explain 480i/480p/720i/720p/1080i/1080i/1080p. I also dont want to think about the fact that they will complain about the black bars on the sides of their TVs when programming is in 4:3 non-HD (or in some cases HD) just like they do on widescreen DVDs. TNT's HD channel already pisses me off because they show a lot of their shows that weren't in widescreen/HD to start with in whats commonly refered to as "Stretch-o-Vision" where they stretch the picture to fill an entire 16:9 screen instead of leaving it in its original 4:3 aspect ratio and other channels are going to follow suit. Id rather see the bars on the sides of the screen then stretch the picture to make everything look bloated.

 

It's quite simple explaining the resolution. Here, I'll do it.

 

On any TV, the way the image is scanned/projected onto your screen is either interlaced or progressive. In interlaced scanning, the image is scanned line by line like this:

TV __________

1 |

 

3 |

 

5 |___________|

(and so on and so forth-excuse the shitty drawing)

With the odd-numbered lines being displayed first, then the even numbered lines coming afterwards. Standard NTSC TVs use 480i, which means 480 lines interlaced. Progressive scanning means that instead of scanning every other line, it scans every line possible in a row. PAL TVs use up to 625p (625 lines progressive), so they tend to have slightly better resolution than NTSC signals.

 

The HDTV standard is 1080i/1080p. I have a 28" widescreen 1080i TV, with built-in HD inputs, it's a Sanyo from Walmart that cost me about $480 or so, but I'm very pleased with the quality considering the price.

 

Here's a piece of advice. Don't waste your money on a plasma TV. While they look slick and all, they have practically no durability whatsoever, and it's incredible how consumers nowadays look at the price tag and assume it's the best thing out there. Hell, even worse when they're financing the damn thing- their plasma TVs will burn out by the time they're done paying them off.

 

LCD is probably better, but even then it's only good if you intend to also use it as a second computer monitor. Eventually I'm going to be getting myself this sexy, beautiful thing hopefully by the end of the year for such a purpose. I intend to do some digital video editing at home using a Powerbook (or a Macbook Pro if only they'd make Final Cut Pro compatible with it).

 

My parents told me they recently bought a 44" plasma screen. These are the same people who had trouble remembering they had to turn the TV to an "INPUT" channel to watch a DVD (using the DVD player I bought them last Christmas). Anyhow, my stepdad want to hook this $3000 technological marvel up to a VCR/DVD combo so there will be "less wires". If you want less wires, you shouldn't have bought something with 1080i resolution. They probably think you can push an HD signal through a coaxial cable. This is almost as bad as my sister-in-law who can’t tell the difference between 16:9 and 4:3 images unless someone points it out to her. She and her idiot husband paid $2300 for a 44" Toshiba HD-TV a couple of years ago and watch the same shitty TV stations they used to watch on their old TV.

Heh, and these are the same kind of people who probably sat there and thought "OH MY GOD WOW LOOK AT THE DIFFERENCE! THAT WAS REALLY WORTH THE 2 AND A HALF GRAND!" even though there's not a difference.

 

People are such fucking sheep. This much I've learned from being an advertising double major.

 

 

I have absolutely no idea on what any of that means.

[Guest Vitamin X]

The higher the resolution, the better quality the picture.

[The Amazing Rando 0]

My parents don't have any sort of HD signal running into the house, yet think the "53 TV they have has such an awesome picture. I mean, it does have an awesome picture, but it doesn't take a genius to look at ANYTHING on it and realize it isn't HD.

 

Honestly, I'm not even sure my area offers HD, or if does it's crazy expensive.

[razazteca 0]

Also...if you think its confusing now trying to explain to people why they aren't watching HD programming just because they have an HD TV but no HD capable box for HD programming, I cant imagine trying to explain 480i/480p/720i/720p/1080i/1080i/1080p. I also dont want to think about the fact that they will complain about the black bars on the sides of their TVs when programming is in 4:3 non-HD (or in some cases HD) just like they do on widescreen DVDs. TNT's HD channel already pisses me off because they show a lot of their shows that weren't in widescreen/HD to start with in whats commonly refered to as "Stretch-o-Vision" where they stretch the picture to fill an entire 16:9 screen instead of leaving it in its original 4:3 aspect ratio and other channels are going to follow suit. Id rather see the bars on the sides of the screen then stretch the picture to make everything look bloated.

 

It's quite simple explaining the resolution. Here, I'll do it.

 

On any TV, the way the image is scanned/projected onto your screen is either interlaced or progressive. In interlaced scanning, the image is scanned line by line like this:

TV __________

1 |

 

3 |

 

5 |___________|

(and so on and so forth-excuse the shitty drawing)

With the odd-numbered lines being displayed first, then the even numbered lines coming afterwards. Standard NTSC TVs use 480i, which means 480 lines interlaced. Progressive scanning means that instead of scanning every other line, it scans every line possible in a row. PAL TVs use up to 625p (625 lines progressive), so they tend to have slightly better resolution than NTSC signals.

 

The HDTV standard is 1080i/1080p. I have a 28" widescreen 1080i TV, with built-in HD inputs, it's a Sanyo from Walmart that cost me about $480 or so, but I'm very pleased with the quality considering the price.

 

Here's a piece of advice. Don't waste your money on a plasma TV. While they look slick and all, they have practically no durability whatsoever, and it's incredible how consumers nowadays look at the price tag and assume it's the best thing out there. Hell, even worse when they're financing the damn thing- their plasma TVs will burn out by the time they're done paying them off.

 

LCD is probably better, but even then it's only good if you intend to also use it as a second computer monitor. Eventually I'm going to be getting myself this sexy, beautiful thing hopefully by the end of the year for such a purpose. I intend to do some digital video editing at home using a Powerbook (or a Macbook Pro if only they'd make Final Cut Pro compatible with it).

 

My parents told me they recently bought a 44" plasma screen. These are the same people who had trouble remembering they had to turn the TV to an "INPUT" channel to watch a DVD (using the DVD player I bought them last Christmas). Anyhow, my stepdad want to hook this $3000 technological marvel up to a VCR/DVD combo so there will be "less wires". If you want less wires, you shouldn't have bought something with 1080i resolution. They probably think you can push an HD signal through a coaxial cable. This is almost as bad as my sister-in-law who can’t tell the difference between 16:9 and 4:3 images unless someone points it out to her. She and her idiot husband paid $2300 for a 44" Toshiba HD-TV a couple of years ago and watch the same shitty TV stations they used to watch on their old TV.

Heh, and these are the same kind of people who probably sat there and thought "OH MY GOD WOW LOOK AT THE DIFFERENCE! THAT WAS REALLY WORTH THE 2 AND A HALF GRAND!" even though there's not a difference.

 

People are such fucking sheep. This much I've learned from being an advertising double major.

 

 

I have absolutely no idea on what any of that means.

 

Europe and Japan tv technology rules, USA sux, everything is expensive and there are not any killer apps for the new technology yet...I'm not buying new technology until there is good porn on it.

[SuperJerk 0]

Here's a piece of advice. Don't waste your money on a plasma TV. While they look slick and all, they have practically no durability whatsoever, and it's incredible how consumers nowadays look at the price tag and assume it's the best thing out there. Hell, even worse when they're financing the damn thing- their plasma TVs will burn out by the time they're done paying them off.

 

Amen. I bought my 52" CRT for under $1000, and it looks fantastic.

 

A trip to Best Buy ought to come with a warning label these days.

[Guest Vitamin X]

Also...if you think its confusing now trying to explain to people why they aren't watching HD programming just because they have an HD TV but no HD capable box for HD programming, I cant imagine trying to explain 480i/480p/720i/720p/1080i/1080i/1080p. I also dont want to think about the fact that they will complain about the black bars on the sides of their TVs when programming is in 4:3 non-HD (or in some cases HD) just like they do on widescreen DVDs. TNT's HD channel already pisses me off because they show a lot of their shows that weren't in widescreen/HD to start with in whats commonly refered to as "Stretch-o-Vision" where they stretch the picture to fill an entire 16:9 screen instead of leaving it in its original 4:3 aspect ratio and other channels are going to follow suit. Id rather see the bars on the sides of the screen then stretch the picture to make everything look bloated.

 

It's quite simple explaining the resolution. Here, I'll do it.

 

On any TV, the way the image is scanned/projected onto your screen is either interlaced or progressive. In interlaced scanning, the image is scanned line by line like this:

TV __________

1 |

 

3 |

 

5 |___________|

(and so on and so forth-excuse the shitty drawing)

With the odd-numbered lines being displayed first, then the even numbered lines coming afterwards. Standard NTSC TVs use 480i, which means 480 lines interlaced. Progressive scanning means that instead of scanning every other line, it scans every line possible in a row. PAL TVs use up to 625p (625 lines progressive), so they tend to have slightly better resolution than NTSC signals.

 

The HDTV standard is 1080i/1080p. I have a 28" widescreen 1080i TV, with built-in HD inputs, it's a Sanyo from Walmart that cost me about $480 or so, but I'm very pleased with the quality considering the price.

 

Here's a piece of advice. Don't waste your money on a plasma TV. While they look slick and all, they have practically no durability whatsoever, and it's incredible how consumers nowadays look at the price tag and assume it's the best thing out there. Hell, even worse when they're financing the damn thing- their plasma TVs will burn out by the time they're done paying them off.

 

LCD is probably better, but even then it's only good if you intend to also use it as a second computer monitor. Eventually I'm going to be getting myself this sexy, beautiful thing hopefully by the end of the year for such a purpose. I intend to do some digital video editing at home using a Powerbook (or a Macbook Pro if only they'd make Final Cut Pro compatible with it).

 

My parents told me they recently bought a 44" plasma screen. These are the same people who had trouble remembering they had to turn the TV to an "INPUT" channel to watch a DVD (using the DVD player I bought them last Christmas). Anyhow, my stepdad want to hook this $3000 technological marvel up to a VCR/DVD combo so there will be "less wires". If you want less wires, you shouldn't have bought something with 1080i resolution. They probably think you can push an HD signal through a coaxial cable. This is almost as bad as my sister-in-law who can’t tell the difference between 16:9 and 4:3 images unless someone points it out to her. She and her idiot husband paid $2300 for a 44" Toshiba HD-TV a couple of years ago and watch the same shitty TV stations they used to watch on their old TV.

Heh, and these are the same kind of people who probably sat there and thought "OH MY GOD WOW LOOK AT THE DIFFERENCE! THAT WAS REALLY WORTH THE 2 AND A HALF GRAND!" even though there's not a difference.

 

People are such fucking sheep. This much I've learned from being an advertising double major.

 

 

I have absolutely no idea on what any of that means.

 

Europe and Japan tv technology rules, USA sux, everything is expensive and there are not any killer apps for the new technology yet...I'm not buying new technology until there is good porn on it.

 

Actually Japan uses the same TV technology as USA (NTSC). Here's a convenient little map off Wikipedia showing the regions of the world using different TV signals:

There's also SECAM, which is a slightly better version of PAL.

[razazteca 0]

Japan may use NTSC region 1 but all of the new technology comes out 1st in Japan.

[C Dubya 04 0]

I absolutely love my plasma. It's 42 inches, which is prefect for the size of my living room.

 

I do get annoyed at the lack of HD channels, but a lot of what I watch is sports and most are now shown in HD. (Especially since Comcast Sports is now all in HD, so I get all the Sixers, Flyers and Phils games in HD). Plus, American Idol looks fantastic in HD.

 

As for the burn in on plasmas, I did a lot of research and this is no longer a problem, except in rare instances if you play a lot of video games on them. I have my system hooked up to another tv in another room, so no need to worry.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Yeah, plasmas aren't as bad as people think. Part of the problem is that when they first came out, people were very uneducated about them...you had salespeople in electronics stores spouting myths about them needing to "have the gas inside recharged" and stupid stuff like that.

 

I know the burn in problem has been greatly reduced...basically the only thing you have to fear is having a static image on screen for long periods of time (I mean several hours at least). This is a problem with basically all TVs, it's just that plasmas are more prone to it.

[Guest Vitamin X]

It's not the burn-in, it's their durability that's a problem. Plasma TVs die out after a few years. CRTs don't.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Europe and Japan tv technology rules, USA sux, everything is expensive and there are not any killer apps for the new technology yet...I'm not buying new technology until there is good porn on it.

 

Directv has Spice HD as a part time HD channel on weekends. Haven't ordered it because its expensive and you only get 3 hour blocks.

[C Dubya 04 0]

Actually, Plasmas dying after a couple of years is a myth too. They should last between 15 and 20 years. LCD and DLP do have a burn out problem though. The blubs need to be replaced every couple of years and are fairly expensive to replace.

 

The thing with Plasmas is that they are expensive, especially as they increase in size. DLP's are not as expensive for much larger tvs.

 

It really comes down to the space you have to fill, your budget and what you're looking for in a picture.

[SuperJerk 0]

I know the burn in problem has been greatly reduced...basically the only thing you have to fear is having a static image on screen for long periods of time (I mean several hours at least). This is a problem with basically all TVs, it's just that plasmas are more prone to it.

More prone that projection screens?

[The Amazing Rando 0]

BTW, my parents did buy a plasma, only to have it die a month later during a thunderstorm-induced power outage. The TV was hooked up to the best surge protector they could find, and it still completely fried it. Upon returning it, they heard that at least a dozen others in the area experienced the same thing.

[NoCalMike 0]

I contacted Dish Network to ask about upgrading to HD programming. They told me it would cost $300 just to upgrade to their HD equipment, which I don't quite understand because technically I am leasing the box and not owning it, so why should I be required to pay for it? My overall bill however would only go up by approx $10/month.

[Guest Vitamin X]

Comcast only charged me a $25 set-up fee and $5 a month for HD.

 

Satellite suckas.

[MrRant 0]

Umm.. they do push the HD signal down through COAX

[Dobbs 3K 0]

They push it through coax, but you have to at least connect your TV to the cable box via a component video cable to view HD, at least that's my understanding.

 

NoCal, the sat company demanding 300 bucks for you to "upgrade" the equipment you don't even own is ludicrous. You should call back and threaten to switch to cable, and see if they'll consider cutting you a better deal.

[MrRant 0]

They push it through coax, but you have to at least connect your TV to the cable box via a component video cable to view HD, at least that's my understanding.

 

NoCal, the sat company demanding 300 bucks for you to "upgrade" the equipment you don't even own is ludicrous. You should call back and threaten to switch to cable, and see if they'll consider cutting you a better deal.

 

I'm aware. I work for the cable company. But you will need Component at the low end of the HD realm yes.