OK, OK, got a challenge......I have been through 3(not one or two) ROKU boxes....have watched Netflix instantly on my old TV with the 3 plug ins....for months THEN ka-dooie! no connection, connection not found, re-set the box, re-set the modem, turning everthing on & off. I am tired and frustrated with System support(everyone speaks Farsi/English) from ROKU and I went to BEST BUYS and bought LG box....connected it with HDMI adapter I had to purchase seperately....and voila! got the program to show up on my TV screen; BUT am unable to get it to play....got my NETGEAR wireless out to try and facilitate this issue, it recognizes the NETGEAR wireless, BUT will not play. THIS CANNOT GO ON...I HAVE PHONE NETFLIX, ROKU, GO ON LINE FOR NETGEAR SUPPORT....I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO DO BESIDES BUT ANOTHER TV. HEEEEELLLLPPPPP!!!!!

Hello, We have an older Sony CRT with no HDMI cables. I have a Zoom brand cable modem connected, via a cable, to an Apple wireless rounter (A Base Station, they call it.) This gives us wireless internet in the house. I have a Roku box connected to video inputs on the TV. This is the old three color system, with white red and yellow pin inputs. The cables for this were in the box with the Roku. The Roku has wireless capability so it works off of the router signal when just plugged into the TV and the power source. We do need to switch between video feeds on the TV to get to the Roku, but this is a simple matter of pressing a button on the TV remote. If you have something like "video 1, video 2, video 3" selections and you only get a blank screen, those inputs are marked as such on the back of your TV and you can use them. If you only have one set of these, you may have to swap out the cables if your DVD player uses the inputs. This might be a good argument for getting a Netflix enabled DVD player or game console. If your DVD player is a good one and you can't see spending the money, you should consider the Roku. The base model today is $59.99 at Roku.com. The website lets you see the back of the device, so you can check out the input areas to see if it matches what you have on your TV. They are very backward compatible in general, so I'm sure you won't have problems there. I bought the XD model ($79.99) for when we upgrade to a better 1080p HD in a couple years, plus it supports the wireless "N" protocall which is the newer, fastest level of wireless and it matches our router. I may have wasted $20.00 because we don't use the internet while watching the Roku and my guess is with the way HDTVs are developing, our future TV will have Netflix ability built into it and we won't need the roku box. Oh well! All it might take for you to get up and running on DSL: call your provider company and ask them for a wireless DSL modem. You might be able to get one for free from them. This will give you wireless in the house and your Roku box will be up in a jiff. When we had DSL we had the wireless router and were happy with it. There was an initial problem with not being able to acess the internet while on the wireless phone, but that is a setting on the modem that can be changed with a quick call to your provider. It is a simple fix and they walk you through it. As to the bandwidth issue go to www.speedtest.net and check your speed it is easy and free. You might be able to research your speed and see how this effects others with Netflix. Just a thought. To give you courage, (if you need it!) go to Youtube and search "set up Roku on DSL," or "set up Roku." Peolpe have made some quick video's of themselves doing this and you'll see how simple it really is. Good luck with it all! We love streaming Netflix. We still sometimes look at each other and say, "This is so awsome!" Here is a link that might be useful: Speed test

You sound like me, I buy and hold till it dies. We still have a 19" tube bought by my wife when my wife was in college back in the (ahem) 70s. We have a 32" tube bought in the 80s. Our viewing treat is in our theater where we have a projector with a 133" screen. The set you chose is fine, the Bravia is a nice series. There have been sound issues, low bass output, but it's a flat screen so it's expected. You'll have it running through a yamaha sound system, so no worries there. When they hitch it up also look for sound synching issues with the picture. Some setups can introduce a slight bit of sound lag, it'll remind you of watching the old Godzilla movies back when we were kids. The lips move, then a split second later, the sound arrives. The sets have synch/delay settings in the set up menus. If it's a problem the set-up guys can take care of it for you. Picture-wise some sets can show flashlighting, which is when viewing a dark screen the corners of the screen are light. Some show it more than others, it's just something to be aware of. Probably going to connect via HDMI cables? For TV/cable viewing, will you need a new cable box? With HD service? Just asking since you;re going from tube TV to an HD-capable TV. About the only alternative thing I'll mention is that if you're into it, you might want to look at the 3D sets. They are new, it's the latest-greatest so to speak, but you can take a peak and look further or take a peak and discard the idea. Or just discard the idea from the get-go. I just thought I'd mention it. DVDs will be around for quite some time, but yes, viewing via downloading through Netflix or Blockbuster is now pretty common. Again, just a warning. downloading can be fine for standard def, but for HD the choices, as well as the download time due to bandwidth, might be a limiting factor for you. It can also depend on if you're a standard def source person or if HD/1080/BluRay is a viewing requirement for you. You won't be penalized for not always watching 1080 on a 50" screen. On a 50" screen, standard def can look fine. But if you were going with a really large screen, then 1080/bluray might be more of a requirement. I'm not a TV or tech guru, just my thoughts.

Micki-Micki, I commend you for presenting this all too common situation in such a way that really cuts through to the heart of the issue. Anyone reading this after all these years can still gain insight from your words. You nailed it when you said, "He can't give 100% to me, but I am expected to give 100%.” along with nailing it on every other thing as well. As some posters pointed out, it is emotionally mature to look at things from the bio-dad's pov and to try to have some understanding for his position. It's also emotionally mature to realize when the bio-dad, whether intentional or not, is using you to compensate for his parental and relationship baggage! I was in this same spot. As much as I didn't want to admit it, it was HIM who created the dynamic. He moved in with me and EOWE I was treated like the "child" from the era when children were to be seen, but not heard. She was treated as the adult. He said the same things to me about it being an "us" situation regarding his daughter, but his unilateral decisions said very clearly otherwise. As disappointing as it may be to come to the end of relationship you had high hopes for, it is less disappointing to be out of a situation where you are taken for granted. If you are a SO living this, please don't fool yourself into believing you are only taken for granted when the kid is around. It may seem like that, but ask yourself: "If he had true respect for you and the relationship, (not to mention respect for being a responsible parent) why would this be the dynamic?" That even one person thinks EOWE is not too much to be treated like a second class citizen represents the mentality that has helped make unhealthy, or should I say, non-existant parental boundaries the norm. Also, it may be good advice in THEORY to make yourself scarce and do your own thing during visitations, but in REALITY the outcome is often what you experienced... the bio-dad presenting being hurt and using the "for the children argument" because he thinks it's an argument that can't be refuted. Nope, all he is doing is using his daughter as leverage. He honestly may not realize he is doing it, but he's continuing with you what he and the bio-mom do with each other. @Kim Aves, "Basically, a couple gets divorced or separates. They can’t suck it up for their own children, but whomever biomom or bio-dad goes to marry, is certainly expected to suck it up for someone else’s children, and time and time again too. Totally backwards." AND "There should be no competition going on. However, what happens a lot is BFs or even husbands wind up treating their child more like a SO or wife, and their SO or wife, more like a child. This is what sets up the competition. Dad, for example, lets his child make adult decisions, like what to eat, where to sit, etc.; meanwhile, SM is expected to give in, more-so like a child would be expected to." EXACTLY! This is not responsible parenting and it makes me beyond frustrated that much of society equates this with "putting your child first". This is not putting your child first! It is setting your child up for failure by putting them in a position they aren't equipped to handle... to take over making decisions that are part of YOUR PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES. Putting your child first is drawing healthy boundaries that show them through example that love and support are achieved through respect, not overindulgence motivated by guilt or competition with the ex or current SO. Creating an environment where the SO (someone the bio-dad is in a situation with who he is SUPPOSED to care about and respect) is downgraded to elevate the child is unneccessary and nothing but a toxic example for how relationships (all relationships) are to be treated. What really opened my eyes to the misguided notion of children first was when I noticed when not only my ex, but other bio-parents had opportunity after opportunity to "put their child first" on their own time, yet didn't. It was as if they used the current SO as their "proof" they were capable of sacrificing. Um, newsflash... This isn't a sacrifice. It's pretty easy to be generous with someone else's "money"! Personally, I got very tired of being treated as free currency. What I'm about to write does not apply to all bio-dads. I say bio-dads because it has just been my personal experience. Some bio-dads may love their child, but they resent the responsibility of having to physically be the sole parent, even if only for a few days a month. They overindulge the child to deal with these feelings. It's as if you are somehow the piece of reality that reminds them that deep down they would rather have their focus elsewhere and not on their child. They internally rail against this. Sadly, you then become the scapegoat to shift the blame onto so they don't have to be honest with themselves.