At 02:49 AM Friday 4/25/2008, Martin Lewis wrote: >On 4/24/08, Ronn! Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >What else is like this... endless "upgrades" to convince > people that their > > > > >perfectly good old product is obsolete? > > > > > > > > Digital TV, frex? > > > > > > Isn't digital TV an entirely new product? Or are you suggesting > > >everyone has cable already so it is pointless? > > > > Nope. I'm talking about people like Nick's little old lady, whom > > (I'm guessing) does not have cable (If not her specifically, there > > are millions like her who don't.) and who has to sometime in the next > > 9.5 months make another trip to the store and fork over part of her > > Social Security check to buy at least a converter box (not free even > > with the coupons) if she wants to keep watching the news or > > whatever. > > I guess I am just used to living in a country where the const of >conversion is trivial compared to the ongoing costs of watching >television. > > You are that it is the enforced obselence of something that works >perfectly well (analogue TV.) However, I'm right in that digital TV is >a pretty substantially different product. I think I'd also draw the >distinction between a government doing something with a clear public >policy aim and a corporation doing something to sell more razors.
Even if the government is honest enough to name it the "Deficit Reduction Act of 2005"? <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/otiahome/dtv/pl_109_171_titleiii.pdf> (Scroll down to "Title III.") Follow The Money Maru . . . ronn! :) _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
