Tesco. no comeback with unsuitable DTT TV

axer · 20-01-2011 6:02pm

watty wrote: »

Since before Christmas on RTE Website, Official Saorview Website and SaorTv.info

http://www.rte.ie/saorview/receiving.html

(my emphasis)

[* Some Freeview sets are pan-European models and 100% compatible, though not certified on the Ireland Country setting]

12th December 2010
http://www.saortv.info/2010/12/14/a-tv-is-not-just-for-christmas/

But even in November 2010 after soft launch of Service on 29th October 2010 most retailers not labelling TVs correctly. Despite Official publicity and specifications since February 2008!

RTE should have been running lots of advertisments running up to christmas to inform people - surely that would be the best way to target the audience who watches Irish TV. They have failed massively here to make it clear to the ordinary joe soap.

STB · 20-01-2011 6:06pm

axer wrote: »

Those TVs do work and will pick up RTE et al for the next 2 years so at the time of creating the contract between consumer and seller, the item works and is fit for purpose.

And thats acceptable is it. I have seen cans of beans with a longer best before date. Will they be sticking up signs to say "will work for 2 years" - NO digital Irish TV - Gis your money".

axer wrote: »

Exactly or some organisation such as the NCA should make a clear statement on this issue.

Dont you think they have enough problems with consumer agencies. It should be in their ineterest to KEEP customers. They will do that by stocking the right PLATFORM NEUTRAL products. Dont second guess what the TV's use will be. Some people are of the opinion that it is acceptable practice to stock the wrong products because they will probably be using third party hardware!

Televisions are an investment. Nobody likes being done.

Can the amateur legal debating society take a step back a few minutes and grasp that the spirit of sales should not be a grey area!

matt-dublin · 20-01-2011 6:07pm

[QUOTE=watty;70187750http://www.saortv.info/2010/12/14/a-tv-is-not-just-for-christmas/

Buying the wrong TV now may mean viewers having to buy a separate set-top box in order to receive the new Irish service. [/QUOTE]

just answered everyones questions there!

watty · 20-01-2011 6:15pm

axer wrote: »

Those TVs do work and will pick up RTE et al for the next 2 years so at the time of creating the contract between consumer and seller, the item works and is fit for purpose.

Exactly or some organisation such as the NCA should make a clear statement on this issue.

Only if all reference to Digital is scored out and Disclaimer label saying it's Analogue Only. Freeview references are not relevant as that is NOT reception technology but a UK Broadcast service that some people can actually receive in Ireland.

Bear in mind that Consumer protection in Ireland is theoretical rather than practical.

NBS and Mobile Internet Advertising as Broadband (it's technically impossible for it to be Broadband).
Comreg finding no ISP is compliant on T&C and does nothing
Enforcment of Eircom USP conditions
Use of "Unlimited" in Internet adverts that ASAI and Comreg was going to stop nearly 4 years ago.
Raising of Electricity Retail price from better than average to nearly most expensive in Europe to have artificial Retail competition
Highest Line Rental in World, yet bottom of OECD for Broadband.
Illegal phone in competitions on TV that took ages to stop.
The Diaego Garcia Phone number Scam
Regulation of Banking, Mortgages, Insurance
List is endless

If people go to Court they generally win. Don't expect pro-activity from any Irish Regulator, most of whom are more concerned with "Competition" between Multinationals than protecting consumer.

Freeview and Saorview are brandnames for services delivered using variants of DVB-T based Digital TV. Just as Irish, UK and German Analogu PAL was similar (UK TVs only had UHF, not the VHF & UHF, and German TVs had different Sound channel, so picture but no sound even though VHF/UHF).

The packaging of compatible and incompatible TVs is often IDENTICAL with no mention of MPEG4 or MPEG2 on box. Just Digital and Freeview as separate descriptions and Logos.

If it's sold in Ireland, EVEN if it has "freeview" on packaging, and has "Digital" on packaging the customer can expect it works on Digital. Many sets do. If it doesn't the obligation is for Shop to correct the label with an added label or else it's not fit for the purpose indicated.

Of course "Saor" just Irish for "Free". How many products are labelled in Irish? Given the essentially same name, both are DVB-T version of Digital (there are four kinds of Digital Terrestrial NOT part of DVB-T or DVB-T2 family, DVB-T2 works on Saorview) and fact that many models are compatible, the incompatible ones need the extra label pointing out that it's not compatible with Irish Digital TV.

Any PayTV if on Irish DTT will NOT be called Saorview. It uses same spec. It just has to have a CI or CI+ slot for payTV cam and card. The same Freeview models that work or don't work on Soarview, will similarly work or not work on pay DTT. By EU law all TVs above a certain size have the pay TV slot.

So it's NOT about labelling "Saorview". Only Certified Sets can have such a label. It's about clearly labelling ANY TV set with a Digital (DVB-T or DVB-T2) tuner as to if it is "compatible" or not with Irish Transmissions. Saorview or any hypothetical pay TV.

All current DVB-T2 tuner models will work, even though we only use DVB-T

See http://www.saortv.info/terrestrial-saorview/for-retailers/

axer · 20-01-2011 6:16pm

STB wrote: »

And thats acceptable is it. I have seen cans of beans with a longer best before date. Will they be sticking up signs to say "will work for 2 years" - NO digital Irish TV - Gis your money".

Its not acceptable but not illegal to sell those tvs. Let the buyer beware.

STB wrote: »

Dont you think they have enough problems with consumer agencies. It should be in their ineterest to KEEP customers. They will do that by stocking the right PLATFORM NEUTRAL products. Dont second guess what the TV's use will be. Some people are of the opinion that it is acceptable practice to stock the wrong products because they will probably be using third party hardware!

Televisions are an investment. Nobody likes being done.

Can the amateur legal debating society take a step back a few minutes and grasp that the spirit of sales should not be a grey area!

It shouldnt be but at present it appears there is no legal protection here. This is extremely important before telling people they have a right to go back and demand a refund - its fundamental to the whole debate and should be the first thing resolved. Arguing morals and ethics here is a waste of time as it does not get anyone anything other than a place to give out. If you want to give out it is more productive to give out to the retailer, your local td, the NCA etc.

donegal11 · 20-01-2011 6:25pm

If I lived in the north and bought a 1080p lcd (mpeg2)freeview tv and in 2012 I couldn't get freeview HD should I get a refund since they said HD tv so it should receive freeview hd right. In the same why your pinning to the word "Digital tv" surely if I bought a "HD tv" it should recieve hd transmission.

Axer your spot on, couldn't agree enough with all your posts.

watty · 20-01-2011 6:36pm

matt-dublin wrote: »

just answered everyones questions there!

That's a statement by a Politician. Also if the TV is labelled "Not Compatible" or has no Digital Tuner, there is no possible refund or replacement.

You are twisting the context.

The Cush · 20-01-2011 6:36pm

axer wrote: »

RTE should have been running lots of advertisments running up to christmas to inform people - surely that would be the best way to target the audience who watches Irish TV. They have failed massively here to make it clear to the ordinary joe soap.

What's worse was last year RTÉ Radio had Tina Leonard and Adrain Weckler on various radio talk shows attempting to badly explain what DTT was about while on campus RTÉ has all the technical and communications expertise they require without the requirement for outside "experts".

We've been saying the same thing since late 2008 about the requirement for a plain-english DTT information/awareness campaign and now with just months to launch they have only recently appointed an agency to do it.

HappyHarry · 20-01-2011 6:52pm

axer wrote: »

It is far from clear imo and would be a tough fight for any consumer to win.

A very good afternoon to you.....

It is very clear that some large retailers deliberately mislead shoppers and deliberately dumped obsolete or soon to be obsolete UK stock in the ROI market for profit.

They were aware of what was happening with DTT (or at least should have been when they took it upon themselves to sell TVs in the Irish market) and choose not to clarify the the limitations of the TVs that they choose to sell in this market. It doesn't need to be 100% black or white.

I don't think you will get very far with a pedantic argument that by using a third party box the TV is supporting Digital. If they put an un-qualified "5.1 Digital Sound" claim on the packaging, and later said well it will work if you have an external receiver I'm sure that wouldn't wash.

The bickering on here by amateur legals is pointless (no offense intended) the law can be an ass, and to shut up some people this would need to be tested in court. I'd reckon Paddy Power would give the consumers better odds of winning.

I'm sure that is why retailers have been giving refunds/replacements in similar cases to the OP, they don't necessarily want this tested in court and publicised.

How many judges will favour the large corporation that were bolstering their profits by taking advantage of people's trust over the 70 year old granny that gave them a couple of weeks pension money for a new TV.

There are many people that signed contracts for investments and even with this signed deceleration that they knew they were getting into a risky investment they are winning their cases again the banks that gave them bad advice. Where does that fit into you "legal" arguments?

People can argue here until the cows come home, but as everyone here seems to agree that Tesco are morally and ethically wrong and the only way to know a court outcome is to test it in court what is the point in arguing? Courts can make strange (some would say wrong) judgements and who knows how hard Tesco would try to fight this, it won't look good for them on the news.

My guess of how this will pan out is that Tesco will try to keep this quiet for another few months or delay things as much as possible, and then insist that people have their receipts (less than 2 years old) and make them jump through a few hoops to reduce the number of people pushing for a resolution. Finally offering replacements \ free Saorview boxes to those that persist.

HappyHarry · 20-01-2011 7:03pm

donegal11 wrote: »

If I lived in the north and bought a 1080p lcd (mpeg2)freeview tv and in 2012 I couldn't get freeview HD should I get a refund since they said HD tv so it should receive freeview hd right. In the same why your pinning to the word "Digital tv" surely if I bought a "HD tv" it should recieve hd transmission.

No because the TV does display HD and does receive Freeview both of the things it claims. It doesn't clam to support Freeview HD, so doesn't have to support it.

Freeview HD is no the same thing as HD. The TVs the OP is referring to claimed to support Digital TV (not digital signals from another device) and it doesn't.

axer · 20-01-2011 7:14pm

HappyHarry wrote: »

I don't think you will get very far with a pedantic argument that by using a third party box the TV is supporting Digital. If they put an un-qualified "5.1 Digital Sound" claim on the packaging, and later said well it will work if you have an external receiver I'm sure that wouldn't wash.

Didnt argue that.

HappyHarry wrote: »

The bickering on here by amateur legals is pointless (no offense intended) the law can be an ass, and to shut up some people this would need to be tested in court. I'd reckon Paddy Power would give the consumers better odds of winning.

But arguing about the morals or ethics get you where? Arguing the legals is important and if someone can find proof of legal rights or a judgement then people should know just like people should know that there is no law or judgement that backs up that they are entitled to a refund etc.

HappyHarry wrote: »

I'm sure that is why retailers have been giving refunds/replacements in similar cases to the OP, they don't necessarily want this tested in court and publicised.

I would think because it looks better for them to just not bother arguing - this does not mean that legally they have to give a refund etc.

HappyHarry wrote: »

How many judges will favour the large corporation that were bolstering their profits by taking advantage of people's trust over the 70 year old granny that gave them a couple of weeks pension money for a new TV.

So it comes down to the perception of big bad business vs frail old granny?

HappyHarry wrote: »

There are many people that signed contracts for investments and even with this signed deceleration that they knew they were getting into a risky investment they are winning their cases again the banks that gave them bad advice. Where does that fit into you "legal" arguments?

Apples and Oranges. There are different laws for both.

HappyHarry wrote: »

People can argue here until the cows come home, but as everyone here seems to agree that Tesco are morally and ethically wrong and the only way to know a court outcome is to test it in court what is the point in arguing? Courts can make strange (some would say wrong) judgements and who knows how hard Tesco would try to fight this, it won't look good for them on the news.

Because people knowing their real rights is important or we will end up with a load more people saying "I know my rights" when they are wrong. These kind of people are bad for other consumers who actually do know their rights.

HappyHarry wrote: »

My guess of how this will pan out is that Tesco will try to keep this quiet for another few months or delay things as much as possible, and then insist that people have their receipts (less than 2 years old) and make them jump through a few hoops to reduce the number of people pushing for a resolution. Finally offering replacements \ free Saorview boxes to those that persist.

I would love to see someone take this to the small claims court but it probably be just cheaper for the big retailers to not bother contesting - this does not infer guilt.

The only important question out of all of this is do people have a legal right to redress should the retailer refuse a refund/replacement etc. I think legally they do not. All the other questions about morals or anything else are a waste of time arguing.

donegal11 · 20-01-2011 7:34pm

HappyHarry wrote: »

No because the TV does display HD and does receive Freeview both of the things it claims. It doesn't clam to support Freeview HD, so doesn't have to support it.

Freeview HD is no the same thing as HD. The TVs the OP is referring to claimed to support Digital TV (not digital signals from another device) and it doesn't.

But the tesco tv receives digital signals from freeview like it claims, It doesn't clam to support soarview , so doesn't have to support it

If you think "digital tv" equals saorview compatible why would hd tv not equal freeview hd. you could claim there both misleading the consumer and demand a refund, what goods a hd tv if it can't receive a hd transmission.

see how ignorance does not make the consumer right.

Sponge Bob · 20-01-2011 7:34pm

I think both Axer and Donegal11 are wrong.

First of all there is no point conflating Irish and British consumer laws, they are basically different.

There is no question that an expensive telly should last longer than a cheap telly. However a cheap telly should work as a telly for at least two years. If it does not then there are a number of breaches.

1. Sales of Goods act tests, merchantable quality and fit for the purpose it was described for. In both cases the definition hinges on the tuner element of the box seeing as it was called a TELEvision...

2. Consumer Protection Act 2007. This adds an Unfair Commercial Practices overlay to the above. The seller is required to exercise professional care in selling goods and the test is whether Tesco

"would be likely to—cause appreciable impairment of the average consumer’s
ability to make an informed choice in relation to the product concerned"

Which they would if they called these incompatible junkheaps TELEvisions.

They are perfectly free, as always, to call them what they are. A Monitor with an analogue tuner. But on the standard tests under those two acts Tesco are guilty as charged....and liable.

My caveats on price apply too, if it cost €150 in 2008 and if it does the job until 2012 there is no comeback. If it cost €1500 the case is entirely different

matt-dublin · 20-01-2011 7:42pm

Has anyone actually got a picture of the tesco advertisements stating digital tv or was it the samsung box that said digital tv?

It might not be tesco in the wrong here it could be the manufacturer.

donegal11 · 20-01-2011 7:49pm

Sponge Bob wrote: »

There is no question that an expensive telly should last longer than a cheap telly. However a cheap telly should work as a telly for at least two years. If it does not then there are a number of breaches.

A tv bought until december will work for 2 years? even longer with a walker dtt box.

Sponge Bob · 20-01-2011 7:50pm

Nope, it is Tesco who choose to sell the stuff. I forgot to mention another explicitly unfair commercial practice from that 2007 Act.

A commercial practice is misleading if the trader omits
or conceals material information that the average consumer would
need, in the context, to make an informed transactional decision
(“material information”) and such practice would be likely to cause
the average consumer to make a transactional decision that the average
consumer would not otherwise make.

HappyHarry · 20-01-2011 7:57pm

axer wrote: »

But arguing about the morals or ethics get you where?

You missed my point (perhaps I wasn't clear), I was saying that people weren't arguing the morals or ethics. The laws are being interpreted two different ways by different people, it's up to a court to adjudicate, we are going around in circles here and even if we agreed it's no use to anyone. Isn't that what courts are for? To pass judgements?

The point of the thread is to help the OP and others in a similar situation with how to tackle their issue. I think it's clear that they have a few avenues worth pursuing to get their issue resolved, and acts \ directives that seem VERY relevant, and SEEM to support their position.

I assume you have some other motivation for posting, desire to provide free legal advise, boredom, ego, or whatever.

Boards.ie is not a court, you are not a judge. Stating that the OP has no legal standing isn't helping them and may be incorrect. If your point was accepted as fact people may just accept getting fobbed off by the retailers. If they pursue small claim court or a legal route ultimately it will be decided upon on it's merits by someone other than you. So far as we know here no one has had to or chosen to go down that route.

axer · 20-01-2011 8:01pm

Sponge Bob wrote: »

There is no question that an expensive telly should last longer than a cheap telly. However a cheap telly should work as a telly for at least two years. If it does not then there are a number of breaches.

When a fault shows then it is taken that it existed at the time of sale the same for fit for purpose - i.e. fit for purpose at the time of sale otherwise if it develops a fault then it is not of merchantable quality. Its down to when the contract was agreed.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

1. Sales of Goods act tests, merchantable quality and fit for the purpose it was described for. In both cases the definition hinges on the tuner element of the box seeing as it was called a TELEvision...

Which are both working and keep working at all times.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

2. Consumer Protection Act 2007. This adds an Unfair Commercial Practices overlay to the above. The seller is required to exercise professional care in selling goods and the test is whether Tesco

"would be likely to—cause appreciable impairment of the average consumer’s
ability to make an informed choice in relation to the product concerned"

Which they would if they called these incompatible junkheaps TELEvisions.

And what is the remedy for breach of something in the Consumer Protection Act 2007? I dont think it is a refund or anything - more like a fine from the government.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

They are perfectly free, as always, to call them what they are. A Monitor with an analogue tuner. But on the standard tests under those two acts Tesco are guilty as charged....and liable.

My caveats on price apply too, if it cost €150 in 2008 and if it does the job until 2012 there is no comeback. If it cost €1500 the case is entirely different

The tuner has gone nowhere. It is still there and still working. Is an old TV made for picking up a different type of signal still not a TV?

axer · 20-01-2011 8:06pm

HappyHarry wrote: »

You missed my point (perhaps I wasn't clear), I was saying that people weren't arguing the morals or ethics. The laws are being interpreted two different ways by different people, it's up to a court to adjudicate, we are going around in circles here and even if we agreed it's no use to anyone. Isn't that what courts are for? To pass judgements?

Exactly, that is why I keep pulling the likes of watty for making what look like definitive claims that the law is clear on this matter when it couldn't be further from the truth.

HappyHarry wrote: »

The point of the thread is to help the OP and others in a similar situation with how to tackle their issue. I think it's clear that they have a few avenues worth pursuing to get their issue resolved, and acts \ directives that seem VERY relevant, and SEEM to support their position.

Its the remedies that matter. It looks like the consumer protection act 2007 doesnt give a remedy to a consumer. And the sale of goods act doesnt address the issue of misleading descriptions/advertising at all.

HappyHarry wrote: »

I assume you have some other motivation for posting, desire to provide free legal advise, boredom, ego, or whatever.

Boards.ie is not a court, you are not a judge. Stating that the OP has no legal standing isn't helping them and may be incorrect. If your point was accepted as fact people may just accept getting fobbed off by the retailers. If they pursue small claim court or a legal route ultimately it will be decided upon on it's merits by someone other than you. So far as we know here no one has had to or chosen to go down that route.

Exactly so people should not be telling people they have rights in law when there is no evidence that they do. watty et al say its clear in the law when it couldn't be further from the truth and will send people down the wrong path to get issues resolved.

Rowley Birkin QC · 20-01-2011 8:08pm

watty wrote: »

Aldi has been refunding 2009 sales.

Really? With much fight?

I wonder what's happening to all these TV's that aren't suitable for sale here. I'm after a cheap replacement for a CRT that's only used to watch DVDs/Xbox so Saorview makes no odds to me at all.

watty · 20-01-2011 8:09pm

axer wrote: »

. watty et al say its clear in the law when it couldn't be further from the truth and will send people down the wrong path to get issues resolved.

In your opinion. Which is not backed up by any facts and is in the minority.

You have also consistently "twisted" and taken out of context points that have been made.

watty · 20-01-2011 8:11pm

Rowley Birkin QC wrote: »

Really? With much fight?

I wonder what's happening to all these TV's that aren't suitable for sale here. I'm after a cheap replacement for a CRT that's only used to watch DVDs/Xbox so Saorview makes no odds to me at all.

No quibble.
Same in Argos, Lidl.
Also reports of Power City, Currys, M&S on sales made more recently.

The longer from purchase the more difficult is the case. The TV has to have been clearly labelled "Digital" without a disclaimer that it's Not compatible to Irish Digital. If it has no Digital Tuner, or was clearly and correctly labelled, then obviously you have no comeback.

Proof of purchase required.

Will Saorview be no odds when all the four main channels are in HD and it has Film channel, 3E, RTE news, Oireachtas, Childrens, 10 or 12 radio and good interactive stuff like BBC does?
Content http://www.saortv.info/channels/

If you shop around you can get a 42" HDTV that works 100% perfectly (but not certified) for 100 Euro less than one that doesn't work!

That's why labelling is an issue.

HappyHarry · 20-01-2011 8:13pm

donegal11 wrote: »

But the tesco tv receives digital signals from freeview like it claims, It doesn't clam to support soarview , so doesn't have to support it

Actually it doesn't receive Freeview in the majority of ROI because that service isn't available in ROI. It doesn't work with the DTT service that we have here either. So it don't do what is says on the box.

I never said it claimed to support Saorview. Saorview is only a new brand name for Irish DTT and the name is irrelevant. The shoppers shouldn't need to get so technical, the sellers are the experts and they are selling in the ROI so should sell the proper goods for the ROI or make it clear that some features advertised don't work here. It's reasonable for the shoppers to take what was on the box at face value without technical knowledge.

You'll probably say if the box says MPEG2 and doesn't mention MPEG4 it does what it says, and it was up to the buyer to know the codecs required?

axer · 20-01-2011 8:16pm

watty wrote: »

In your opinion. Which is not backed up by any facts and is in the minority.

Im not making any claim of rights. Im at the default position of there being no rights. I see no evidence of rights for this scenario.

watty wrote: »

You have also consistently "twisted" and taken out of context points that have been made.

Nope, I have pointed out why they don't apply or why they are wrong.

Lets agree to disagree but dont be constantly posting that people have clear rights regarding this when its obvious that they do not. A judge may rule on your side in the future but it will be far from a clear case.

watty · 20-01-2011 8:22pm

axer wrote: »

Nope, I have pointed out why they don't apply or why they are wrong.

You simply stated you didn't agree. Not once have you offered a clear explanation or evidence of why your opinion is correct.

Rowley Birkin QC · 20-01-2011 8:26pm

watty wrote: »

No quibble.
Same in Argos, Lidl.
Also reports of Power City, Currys, M&S on sales made more recently.

The longer from purchase the more difficult is the case. The TV has to have been clearly labelled "Digital" without a disclaimer that it's Not compatible to Irish Digital. If it has no Digital Tuner, or was clearly and correctly labelled, then obviously you have no comeback.

Proof of purchase required.

Will Saorview be no odds when all the four main channels are in HD and it has Film channel, 3E, RTE news, Oireachtas, Childrens, 10 or 12 radio and good interactive stuff like BBC does?
Content http://www.saortv.info/channels/

If you shop around you can get a 42" HDTV that works 100% perfectly (but not certified) for 100 Euro less than one that doesn't work!

That's why labelling is an issue.

Interesting. And do you have to give them back the TV aswell to get the refund?

I'd be looking to get one that isn't compatible with Saorview for a room in the house that isn't used that much so it really wouldn't be a big issue if I could get very good value on a tv that I could use for the Xbox.

HappyHarry · 20-01-2011 8:27pm

axer wrote: »

watty et al say its clear in the law when it couldn't be further from the truth and will send people down the wrong path to get issues resolved.

Whether it's clear or the wrong path is a matter of opinion. It seems clear to me and to many others. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean you are right.

In your opinion what should the OP do to resolve this issue? You have stated that Tesco were morally and ethically wrong, should they just bend over and take it? Is small claims court or other legal avenue a certain dead end in your opinion? In your opinion if Tesco's attention was drawn to the various acts and directives are they 100% going to maintain their stance?

If Tesco decide to replace because they don't wish to fight it out, it's still a resolution for the OP and perhaps others. It doesn't need to be a legal victory in court to work out the correct moral and ethical way.

You claim that you are concerned that people who know their right will be negatively impacted by people that claim to know but aren't actually senior council and have a water tight case.
If these people that know their rights, are 100% in the clear in a black and white case (which seems to be the only case worth pursuing in your world) surely they will still succeed regardless of people who only think they know their rights?
Doesn't make sense to me. What is your motivation for pushing your argument so vehemently?

watty · 20-01-2011 8:36pm

Rowley Birkin QC wrote: »

Interesting. And do you have to give them back the TV aswell to get the refund?

Of course

Rowley Birkin QC wrote: »

I'd be looking to get one that isn't compatible with Saorview for a room in the house that isn't used that much so it really wouldn't be a big issue if I could get very good value on a tv that I could use for the Xbox.

Why when a good compatible one costs no more and costs less than some.

There is no value at all in deliberately looking for an Incompatible TV.

That's akin to deliberately looking for a brand new Left hand Drive car that you are only ever going to use in Ireland.

If it is ONLY for an Xbox you can save money by buying a Monitor. Monitors are cheaper than HDTVs, because there is no Tuner.

donegal11 · 20-01-2011 8:45pm

HappyHarry wrote: »

You'll probably say if the box says MPEG2 and doesn't mention MPEG4 it does what it says, and it was up to the buyer to know the codecs required?

Up until October I would as there is no official service to test against,but not now as it would be reasonable to have compatible tvs as there are plenty available but this was not the case two years ago and any options available where relatively more expensive to there freeview counterparts.

Tesco know what there doing selling non compliant tvs, if they put a sign up saying "not suitable for Irish dtt" how many would they sell, the amount of stock they'll sell now that I'll be connected to sky or upc will make up for a small porportion of possible returns.But in fairness at xmas they did have a considerable amount of compatible bush lg and Samsung tvs for sale.

There is no point arguing about consumer law because we don't have any precedent in relation to this a judge might see a saorview box as an equitable judgement in 2012 who knows.

watty · 20-01-2011 8:58pm

Many boxes make no mention of MPEG2 or MPEG4. Just Digital.

Availability isn't the issue.

Tesco. no comeback with unsuitable DTT TV

Comments