Best Buy, Wal-Mart, Others Fined Over Digital TV Notices

Ian Lamont writes "The FCC has fined 11 retailers and television manufacturers for violating rules relating to the 2009 digital TV transition. Best Buy, Circuit City, Target, Sears, Kmart, and Wal-Mart supposedly failed to place notices near analog-only TV sets warning customers that the sets did not have digital tuners. In part, the required notice reads: 'This television receiver has only an analog broadcast tuner and will require a converter box after February 17, 2009, to receive over-the-air broadcasts with an antenna because of the Nation's transition to digital broadcasting. Analog-only TVs should continue to work as before with cable and satellite TV services, gaming consoles, VCRs, DVD players, and similar products.' The fines total $6.6 million."

Comments

Just the cost of doing business

[hairyfeet]

With the money they make on cheapy tv's this is just the cost of business. Wally world still sells a ton of cheap analog 27in.

Re:Just the cost of doing business

[timmarhy]

I challenge this idea that 6 million dollar fines are just considered a cost of doing business. have any of you actually dealt with an accounting department before? as a manager, if you cost ANY company 6.6 million your ass would be fired and there would be hell to pay.

Re:Just the cost of doing business

[cheebie]

But what if that $6 million fine was the result of an extra $60 million profit from selling cheap TVs for people to put in their bathroom/camper/boat/etc?

These fines should be based on some percentage of the profits from the activity in question. And that percentage should be over 100%.

Re:Just the cost of doing business

[hymie!]

if you cost ANY company 6.6 million your ass would be fired and there would be hell to pay. RTFA. The fines (plural) total $6.6 million. The largest fine (for a merchant) was $1.1 million

Re:Just the cost of doing business

[markswims2]

1. sell a ton
2. get fined
3. profit

...not get fired

Re:Just the cost of doing business

[Machtyn]

The fines total $6.6 million. That means not a single company is paying $6 million, but a group of 11 retailers and manufacturers.

The biggest fines went to Sears and subsidiary Kmart, nearly $1.1 million; Wal-Mart, $992,000; and TV manufacturer Syntax-Brillian, nearly $1.3 million.

So adding that up, Sears(1.1)+KMart(1.1)+Syntax-Brillian(1.3)+Wal-Mart(.992) = $4.492 million. Which leaves another $2.1 million to split between 7 other companies. Wal-Mart probably makes over $6.6 million in electronics in a day in a state.

Re:Just the cost of doing business

[Anonymous Coward]

$6.6 mil / 11 retailers? No big deal.

Re:Just the cost of doing business

[c6gunner]

But what if that $6 million fine was the result of an extra $60 million profit from selling cheap TVs for people to put in their bathroom/camper/boat/etc?

For your scenario to make sense, they would not only have to sell enough TV's to create that much profit, but they'd have to sell them to people who would not have bought one if those signs had actually been placed on the TV's. Considering how few people actually care about over-the-air programming, I find that rather unlikely.

Re:Just the cost of doing business

[cheebie]

If you think people don't care about over-the-air programming anymore, you're probably only talking to well-off people. I know people who can't afford extra money every month for cable. But they could afford a one-time outlay for a small TV.

Also, how's that cable gonna work on a boat, or camping? There's still a good market for cheap TVs.

Re:Just the cost of doing business

[Anonymous Coward]

Sears + KMart together were 1.1M. 'Sears and subsidiary' means that sears owns kmart, so they would be fined together.

Re:Just the cost of doing business

[quanticle]

Well, its not just people who are uninterested in OTA programming. People who have (analog) cable TV will be unaffected by the switch to digital broadcasting. Therefore, if you have analog cable, and you don't care about getting HD programming, its certainly useful for you to pick up a cheap analog TV rather than shell out more for one with a digital tuner that you won't use.

Re:Just the cost of doing business

[budgenator]

The fly in the ointment is they have to label the TV's as non-digital or pull them from the shelves so the FCC can go back and hit them again next month and probably raise the fines for a second offense!

Re:Just the cost of doing business

[StormyWeather]

Believe it or not there are people that don't really watch TV unless it's something special, or they need to tune in to see if a tornado is coming towards their house.

Re:Just the cost of doing business

[Achromatic1978]

I'd believe it. People who don't watch TV usually tend to be quite vocal about it. ;)

Re:Just the cost of doing business

[c6gunner]

If you think people don't care about over-the-air programming anymore, you're probably only talking to well-off people. I know people who can't afford extra money every month for cable. But they could afford a one-time outlay for a small TV.

I never said these people don't exist. In fact, I specifically made an allowance for just such individuals by saying "considering how few people actually care about over-the-air programming". In other words, while there are still people out there who do care about OTA TV, I very much doubt that they make up a large enough demographic to make a $6,000,000 fine "part of doing business". Especially when the retailers could make almost as much profit by putting up a warning sign on the analog TV's while also selling digital alternatives for those who really care.

Also, how's that cable gonna work on a boat, or camping?

All the people I know who bothers having a TV on their boat also have small satellite dishes for them. If you can afford a large boat, you can certainly afford a dish for it. They also usually have VCR's, DVD players, X-BOX 360's, etc, so I very much doubt that they'll miss the ability to receive mediocre programming over the airwaves.

As for camping, I can't say I've ever brought a TV along on a camping trip. I did however carry one around in the field when I was working with the military, so ok, I guess a few army guys might be occasionally inconvenienced by not having a digital receiver in their TV's.

Re:Just the cost of doing business

[cybereal]

But what if that $6 million fine was the result of an extra $60 million profit from selling cheap TVs for people to put in their bathroom/camper/boat/etc?

These fines should be based on some percentage of the profits from the activity in question. And that percentage should be over 100%. It isn't going to be, there is no chance that the 3-4 analog sets remaining in these stores makes that much revenue let alone profit.

In fact, in most of these stores I have personally seen the warning signs that are required, so they are not skirting the issue. Most likely, a few individual stores failed to properly update their signage according to the corporate directions and that's resulting in the fine. The most likely result will either be store manager firings or at best, a massive training effort to prevent this from happening in the future.

Furthermore the constitutionality of intentionally harming the profitability of a business as a penalty is suspect. Fines generally must be the same for anyone who violates the rules, and not based on percentages of facts about them.

Re:Just the cost of doing business

[hairyfeet]

I don't know how it is in other states, but here (AR) the 27in analog for $259 flies off the shelf almost as fast as they can put them up. Here in AR most folks don't bother with OTA due to all the mountains and valleys making for a lousy reception, so the $259 set hooked to cable/sat makes for a good deal. And we tech guys seem to forget that there are a lot of folks that don't know squat about tech and would be spooked off by the sign(I can't remember seeing any sign a couple of months ago when Mom got one of those 27in for her sat) so I can see a local Wal Mart deciding the profits made from the cheap sets were worth taking the fine. I know my Mom would have probably passed had she seen a sign and I wasn't there, even though she hasn't watched a minute of OTA tv since '82. But that is my 02c, YMMV.

Re:Just the cost of doing business

[Random Destruction]

These fines should be based on some percentage of the profits from the activity in question. And that percentage should be over 100%. What if the TVs are loss leaders? Would the FCC owe /them/ money?

Re:Just the cost of doing business

[ClarifyAmbiguity]

It's the consumer's job to educate his or herself about a product he or she is interested in buying - not the responsibility of a retailer and especially not the responsibility of government to enforce.

Re:Just the cost of doing business

[RobertM1968]

Also, how's that cable gonna work on a boat, or camping?

A very long cord? Just a thought... :-)

Re:Just the cost of doing business

[cjsm]

It's the consumer's job to educate his or herself about a product he or she is interested in buying - not the responsibility of a retailer and especially not the responsibility of government to enforce.

Its unethical to knowingly sell something that should work for five or ten years, but will only work for less then a year, without the seller informing the buyer.

Why do conservatives demand ethical behavior from individuals, but believe business has no ethical responsibilities at all?

Re:Just the cost of doing business

[pin0chet]

you're wrong, the TV will work just fine for years to come. its ability to receive analog signals (arguably not a major function of the TV) will be diminished when broadcasters stop transmitting in analog. but all other uses of the TV will work, and any analog TV sold today is compatible with a digital OTA receiver which are both available and government-subsidizaed.

Re:Just the cost of doing business

[sjames]

Also, how's that cable gonna work on a boat, or camping?

A very long cord? Just a thought... :-)

Yeah, but just when the show gets to the good part, someone will drag an anchor over it. :-)

Re:Just the cost of doing business

[sjames]

Furthermore the constitutionality of intentionally harming the profitability of a business as a penalty is suspect. Fines generally must be the same for anyone who violates the rules, and not based on percentages of facts about them.

The legal idea that nobody should be permitted to profit from a crime or tort is fairly deeply ingrained into law. On what do you base the idea that a fine cannot be based on a percentage?

Consider the idea of treble (300%) damages for willful patent infringement.

Arguably, fines that are not scaled to the individual are inherantly unfair and ineffective as a deterrant.

Of course, we could just structure the law to get the same effect without the percentages, such as make each individual sale of an analog only television where the signs are not properly posted incur a $1000 fine.

Re:Just the cost of doing business

[cjsm]

Its still an obsolete technology. Shouldn't businesses inform the consumer of this? Maybe the buyer, once informed, will not want to buy an obsolete technology.

Sure, you can get a converter box, with a government subsidy covering part of the cost. But not everyone will want too jump through those hoops to use an obsolete technology.

And it will also work with analog cable. But a TV is a long term investment. And while the U.S. and much of the world coninues moving to high definition widescreen television, the purchasers of the analog TV may be stuck have to throw out an almost new set in order to keep up. And what's to prevent the cable companies from charging a premium rate for analog cable as digital becomes the standard?

Of course, some people may not care, and that's fine. But the whole point of my first reply is the store should inform the customers so they can make a decision of what they want of do, not be sold an obsolete technology without any warning.

Re:Just the cost of doing business

[Lord Flipper]

I challenge this idea that 6 million dollar fines are just considered a cost of doing business

Right, agreed; it's more along the lines of a 'license', which is also a cost of doing business. So, let me get this straight, you figure this was a goof-up, right, and 'heads will roll'? Let's think about that.

For one thing, it seems likely that the 6 million in fines is portioned out to the scofflaws in relation to their size and/or sales. With me so far? Now, what do you figure the odds are that the relevant 'planners', etc, at SIX big chains, ALL made the same 'mistake', or, worse yet, that all six chains were in any way surprised that they'd end up paying some token fine?

For extra credit, excluding non-US stores, how long do you figure it will take these guys at their six chains to recoup their 'fines' (ha ha, there's that word again) in SECONDS?

I haven't done the math, but, I'll be honest, it would be a hilariously trivial number of open-for-biz seconds, I guarantee you that. It's a bit like forcing, say, Bill Gates, to buy a used Chevy. :)

Re:Just the cost of doing business

[Anonymous Coward]

With the money they make on cheapy tv's this is just the cost of business. Wally world still sells a ton of cheap analog 27in.

And I hope everyone on slashdot is brighter than to assume a nickel will go to any of the people screwed over.. It'll all go to lawyers or get pissed down n a rathole called a general fund.

Re:Just the cost of doing business

[kd4zqe]

I'm one of them... My coax comes out of the jack into a lightning arrestor, and then directly into my cable modem.I haven't watched live broadcast/cable television in my home in almost 4 years. Most of what I watch is from the BBC or other foreign networks anyways via stream or Bitorrent. American TV bores me these days. The only reason that I pay for cable TV service is that the $10 "Limited Basic Cable" plan reduces my $69 cable modem fee to $41, resulting in a $51 bill.

Now if only I could keep taxes from inflating it by ANOTHER $10/mo.

Re:Just the cost of doing business

[cybereal]

This isn't a violation of law, it's a violation of code. There is a significant difference. Consider it analogous to the violation of traffic movement code vs. an actual criminal offense like theft.

FCC/FTC violations, just like traffic violations can escalate to criminal offenses in certain rare situations but it's rather unlikely this will happen here.

And still, on your example, the damage percentage is not based on a fact of the punished party, it's based on the value of what they stole or used without permission. Take the recently tested constitutionality of RIAA's awards in their various cases, that's not based on what the defendant gained from the situation or anything about them other than the number of offenses, it's based on the maximum amount of attachable value within the constraints of jury determined morals and the constitution as upheld by that jury's decision.

Fining a company the profits they made selling TV's they can legally sell would result is vastly different fee structures for differently sized entities, potentially allowing franchised corporations the ability to avoid fair punishment... no those types of fines should generally be a same range or calculation regardless of the individual business's success in the matter.

And in this case, I think it would be seen as a single violation per location in question, much like an OSHA investigation.

Re:Just the cost of doing business

[Hoknor]

The number presented at the congressional hearings about the DTV switchover was "19 percent, roughly 21 million U.S. households rely exclusively on free over-the-air television." This being the hearing where the General Accounting Office said that the subsidy for set-top-boxes could exceed $10 billion.

Re:Just the cost of doing business

[NateTech]

Doesn't matter -- corporations do everything possible to MAXIMIZE profit. Unless a top-dog made the decision to take the fines, someone's head will roll.

And if a top-dog did make the decision, they already had someone's head ready in mind to roll anyway, to cover for their decision. A scapegoat who couldn't prove they decided to do it.

Re:Just the cost of doing business

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd have to defend Wally on this one though. They were one of the first places in my town to properly display the TV disclaimers about 60 days before they were required. They were also the first to completely change their lines to digital tuners almost overnight... starting in January of 2007. The rule originally was written for TVs over 13". It seems they started going after all TVs, missed or removed labels and things like VCRs and such that don't output digital signals more than just TVs.

This must be "administrative" ... i.e made up.. reason for fines to keep the fining offices employed.

Re:Just the cost of doing business

[sjames]

I think you have missed the point. It really doesn't matter if these are fines for a code violation, for a criminal law violation or a happy bloogle day tax.

Fines based on a per-location basis is a boon for businesses that have large locations and the death of a mom and pop establishment. If the fine is (for example) $1000 per location, the ultra-mega-TV mart that sold 1000 TVs out of it's 10 acre warehouse owes $1000. $10 profit/TV times 1000 TVs - $1000 = $9000 profit (instead of $10000). It's a 10% tax to them. They'll never stop.

MomNpop sells 10 TVs at the same profit. They owe $1000 for the fine. 10 * $10 - $1000 = -$900. Looks like the fine WILL stop them.

With MomNpop out of that market, Ultra-mega-TV mart raises it's price by $2 per TV. They are now MORE profitable thanks to the fines! They uietly lobby to make sure the fines never go away.

For another example, consider traffic citations.

Joe Buxaplenty habitually speeds from meeting to meeting. Time is money! One day, he gets pulled over and recieves a ticket costing 0.02% of his monthly income. Grump grump grump, why do people insist on wasting his time with crap like this?

Jane Worksaplenty habitually speeds from job1 to job2 every day. She hopes one day she can find 1 full time job to replace the 2 part-time jobs she has now. But for now, if she's late just a couple more times, she'll lose job2 and won't be able to pay the bills. She gets pulled over and recieves a ticket costing 7.5% of her monthly income. If she pawns the TV and the stereo and skips lunch a few days, she can probably just about cover it.

In effect, Jane was hit more than 300 times harder than Joe for the same minor offense. Arguably, she had a better reason to be speeding in the first place.

Re:Just the cost of doing business

[cthulhu11]

How many of those people who "can't afford" cable TV service smoke or drive cars that get 35mpg? Yeah, that's what I thought.

Re:Just the cost of doing business

[cthulhu11]

/. edited my text. ^35mpg^less than 35mpg

Re:Just the cost of doing business

[Anonymous Coward]

DTV Retailer uses Scam 'Smoke and Mirrors' Tactics

Analog TV users must purchase a DTV converter box before broadcasts go digital in 2009, and the US Government is offering $40 coupons to support the transition. Coupons have a 90 day shelf life and lose their value after 90 days ... this has led to unscupulous tactics by one DTV coupon program retailer, namely, Mosquito Productions. The coupon program requires retailers to become certified by the NTIA (the Government body running the program) before processing orders for the boxes. Apparently the certification program is still a bit lax, as the frenzy to purchase DTV boxes using these coupons seems to have drawn unscrupulous fraud artists into the mix. Orchestrating the scam, Mosquito Productions, via its web site freedtvshop.com and its lack of legitimate hardware supplier relationships, apparently is selling backordered converter boxes to unsuspecting consumers and capturing consumers $40 coupon information at the same time. A majority of the products on their website indicate "On Backorder", yet they continue to use the pictures of the products as a means to convince customers to reveal the coupon data to the company on what appears to be an insecure databasing scam, locking in customer interest and keeping their victims 'on the hook' while they scramble to make things right. Thousands of coupons may have been improperly revealed to Mosquito Productions as the result of what some are calling a massive internet 'phishing' operation." Read on for details of the scam claimed by this anonymous reader.

Fact: Mosquito Productions and freedtvshop.com together are promoting and selling products that are not in stock or available for sale. This practice of selling 'backordered' products is against federal contractor regulations and has drawn public interest and even coverage by 3rd-parties. Investigators attempted to reach the company to no avail.

The scam website freedtvshop.com continues its practice to take pre-orders for the DTV converter boxes that are NOT in stock, and promises delivery in the future without any guarantee they can deliver the equipment. The company immediately collects the information from Government coupons (in violation of the program rules, which prohibit back-ordering) and charges customer credit cards with an authorization for future purchases. Early-adopting consumers were willing to overlook these practices, feeling they would eventually own a converter box on the market. The scam also pulled on the heartstrings of Americans by tying in a Support Our Troops message alongside each scam sale. Federal investigators may be notified to see where the money actually went and to what charities the donations, if any, ever made it to the troops. Further investigations are imminent and it is now known in certain circles that the Company may face the possible of heavy fines and may force bankruptcy. This would surely leave customers that do not take immediate action in the dark when their TV sets go blank forever come February 17, 2009.

As an example, several weeks ago, freedtvshop.com announced that they would not be shipping the Maxmedia MMDTVB03 at all. They were forced to take the product off their website when it became known that the supplier, Maxmedia had never agreed to supply them equipment in the first place. Investigators later learned the MMDTVB03 that appeared on the Mosquito website in fact, would never even make it to market and would be renamed and not available until June. It appears that Mosquito Productions, through its freedtvshop.com website posted converter boxes for sale to unsuspecting customers without actual supplier commitments or relationships and without known availability of shipments from the suppliers. Mosquito Productions now attempting to legitimize what began as a complete 'smoke and mirrors' operation. They seem to still be an approved NTIA retailer, however, it should be known that concerned customers should immediately call the NTIA if they believe there may be

What did you expect?

[Dishevel]

Companies don't really like telling you that thing you are about to buy sucks.

Re:What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Companies don't really like telling you that thing you are about to buy sucks.

Their shareholders should be up in arms about the companies wasting the chance to upsell customers on a converter box, but they're too stupid and lazy to care either.

Re:What did you expect?

[ddrichardson]

Oddly enouugh, Tesco (Walmarts competitor in the UK) are running an advertising campaign on TV just now where this is the exact premise. "Buy our budget mushrooms, they're ugly as sin but are cheap and going in a pie anyway". Novel approach.

Re:What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is why they didn't mark the HD-DVD players as obsolete when they marked them down to $75.

Re:What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

As an employee of one of the listed companies, this is pure truth. I've actually been Spoken To about my voicing of opinions to customers. Apparently, telling someone NOT to buy, say, an HP or a Polaroid digital camera cos it sucks is a bad thing to do. And here I'd thought that getting the customer the best product was the best practice. Oh well.

Re:What did you expect?

[MadnessASAP]

The cosine of an imaginary time sucks? I guess so, I sure wouldn't appreciate any math involving that.

Re:What did you expect?

[Your Pal Dave]

I dunno, every time I've decided to buy something at Best Buy the salesdroid insisted that it sucks, and that's why I need to buy an extended warranty.

I don't go to Best Buy anymore.

Re:What did you expect?

[RealGrouchy]

My stereotype of the Wal-Mart demographic is that they will buy the cheapest thing that works right now.

Frankly, I didn't realize that Wal-Mart products were of sufficient quality to last beyond February 19, 2009.

- RG>

Re:What did you expect?

[MilesAttacca]

Actually, I kind of appreciate their Durabrand consumer electronics. I had an MP3/CD player that stood up to a lot of heavy wear-and-tear (constant use, constant dropping, etc.) for over two years. When it died, I replaced it with a fancy Memorex player at twice the price. It lasted eight months. I'm not buying Memorex media anymore, either.

Re:What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

DTV Retailer uses Scam 'Smoke and Mirrors' Tactics

Analog TV users must purchase a DTV converter box before broadcasts go digital in 2009, and the US Government is offering $40 coupons to support the transition. Coupons have a 90 day shelf life and lose their value after 90 days ... this has led to unscupulous tactics by one DTV coupon program retailer, namely, Mosquito Productions. The coupon program requires retailers to become certified by the NTIA (the Government body running the program) before processing orders for the boxes. Apparently the certification program is still a bit lax, as the frenzy to purchase DTV boxes using these coupons seems to have drawn unscrupulous fraud artists into the mix. Orchestrating the scam, Mosquito Productions, via its web site freedtvshop.com and its lack of legitimate hardware supplier relationships, apparently is selling backordered converter boxes to unsuspecting consumers and capturing consumers $40 coupon information at the same time. A majority of the products on their website indicate "On Backorder", yet they continue to use the pictures of the products as a means to convince customers to reveal the coupon data to the company on what appears to be an insecure databasing scam, locking in customer interest and keeping their victims 'on the hook' while they scramble to make things right. Thousands of coupons may have been improperly revealed to Mosquito Productions as the result of what some are calling a massive internet 'phishing' operation." Read on for details of the scam claimed by this anonymous reader.

Fact: Mosquito Productions and freedtvshop.com together are promoting and selling products that are not in stock or available for sale. This practice of selling 'backordered' products is against federal contractor regulations and has drawn public interest and even coverage by 3rd-parties. Investigators attempted to reach the company to no avail.

The scam website freedtvshop.com continues its practice to take pre-orders for the DTV converter boxes that are NOT in stock, and promises delivery in the future without any guarantee they can deliver the equipment. The company immediately collects the information from Government coupons (in violation of the program rules, which prohibit back-ordering) and charges customer credit cards with an authorization for future purchases. Early-adopting consumers were willing to overlook these practices, feeling they would eventually own a converter box on the market. The scam also pulled on the heartstrings of Americans by tying in a Support Our Troops message alongside each scam sale. Federal investigators may be notified to see where the money actually went and to what charities the donations, if any, ever made it to the troops. Further investigations are imminent and it is now known in certain circles that the Company may face the possible of heavy fines and may force bankruptcy. This would surely leave customers that do not take immediate action in the dark when their TV sets go blank forever come February 17, 2009.

As an example, several weeks ago, freedtvshop.com announced that they would not be shipping the Maxmedia MMDTVB03 at all. They were forced to take the product off their website when it became known that the supplier, Maxmedia had never agreed to supply them equipment in the first place. Investigators later learned the MMDTVB03 that appeared on the Mosquito website in fact, would never even make it to market and would be renamed and not available until June. It appears that Mosquito Productions, through its freedtvshop.com website posted converter boxes for sale to unsuspecting customers without actual supplier commitments or relationships and without known availability of shipments from the suppliers. Mosquito Productions now attempting to legitimize what began as a complete 'smoke and mirrors' operation. They seem to still be an approved NTIA retailer, however, it should be known that concerned customers should immediately call the NTIA if they believe there may be

And where weren't they doing this?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't spend a lot of time in Best Buy or Circuit City(at least around the TVs) any more, but I know that Wal-Mart did have those notices posted around the DVD recorders and qualifying TVs the last time I looked.

Re:And where weren't they doing this?

[od05]

The notices are up in my local Sears, and have been for quite some time.

FUD permeates analog-to-digital TV switchover

[mrspin]

http://www.last100.com/2008/04/11/fud-permeates-analog-to-digital-tv-conversion-in-the-us/ "It seems like a straight forward proposition, but there's FUD -- fear, uncertainty, and doubt -- swirling around when it comes to the upcoming U.S. digital TV conversion."

And will any of this $$$...

[BUL2294]

...go to the purchasers, who got duped, into buying said TVs? NO...

Why, oh, why didn't the government ban imports of analog-only TVs after a certain date (say 1-2 years ago)? I mean this would have solved 95% of the problem...

Re:And will any of this $$$...

[MoonBuggy]

I think that people are making far too much of an issue of the whole thing. Digital tuner boxes are cheap, simple and easy to get hold of. I know we're on a slightly different system here, but they start at about £10 which is equivalent to $20, half the value of the vouchers that your government is dishing out for the switchover! A product that will need a £10 upgrade for some users (i.e. those without cable or satellite) really does not need to be banned from import.

Re:And will any of this $$$...

[Megane]

Actually, they did ban the manufacture, import or interstate shipment of analog-only TV sets a little over a year ago, which was two years before the analog broadcasting cutoff. That doesn't mean that there weren't six months or more of analog-only TV sets in the warehouses. And this also applies to VCRs, DVRs, and any other device which has an NTSC tuner, but no ATSC tuner.

Also, this only applies to sets with a tuner. Tuner-less sets (aka "monitors") are exempt.

Re:And will any of this $$$...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't really think you can apply your country's pricing to the cost of the devices in the United States. Here the cheapest they go for is about $60. So to say that it's half the cost of a $40 voucher doesn't exactly make sense.

Re:And will any of this $$$...

[Megane]

Those are UK Freeview tuners. Which are cheaper specifically because they do not receive HD. The US went for HD from the start, which costs more initially, but it also means that we won't have to toss out a bunch of electronics all over again to maybe get HD by 2012, like will happen in the UK. Some of us have been getting HD for over four years now.

Sure, a lot of the programming is up-converted and window-boxed (new studio equipment isn't cheap and can only be manufactured so fast, not to mention the SD reruns), but most US digital TV stations are broadcasting only an HD signal. This means that even tuners with SD-only outputs still need to receive an HD signal and down-convert the output, which does affect the price a bit. And new TV sets are required to have the digital tuner as of a year ago, so this is only temporary, and in the long run will have a minimal effect on TV prices.

Also, these are the first wave of "converter box" tuners. Before this, all the tuner boxes had HD video outputs, and cost $175 and up... if you could find them in stock. Which you couldn't, either because they couldn't manufacture enough to meet the demand, or because the big box electronics stores would rather sell satellite TV and make a few bucks off of selling new subscriptions. Though to be fair, many satellite HD receiver boxes from the past few years also contain an ATSC digital terrestrial tuner, and many of those work without a satellite subscription.

Re:And will any of this $$$...

[BUL2294]

Slightly different system? DVB-T is totally different than ATSC. Without getting into the merits of one system over another, DVB-T is not as advanced as ATSC (granted, DVB-T2 will be more advanced than ATSC--3 years from now), and the technology has been out longer, so the digital-to-analog converters are cheaper due to economies of scale... At best, you've made an apples-to-oranges comparison.

Re:And will any of this $$$...

[vtcodger]

Unfortunately, since the US uses NTSC for analog and our frequency allocations are different from anyplace outside the Western Hemisphere and I believe our digital formats also are unique, your $20 converters won't work here. Ours didn't even show up in the stores until about 30 days ago and cost USD $60 or so. There is will be $40 off coupons available from the government and I've requested one, but it hasn't turned up yet. Oh yeah, and last time I looked, only 3 of our 8 local stations have their DTV transmitters on the air.

And there is the seldom mentioned problem that analog TV viewers tend to be folks living on small incomes, fixed incomes, or both. They don't necessarily have even $20 to spare.

I'm curious how well digital is going to work in my area which has a lot of hills and where folks tend to get marginal coverage. Analog coverage around here used to be described as "one and a half stations". Rumor has it that digital coverage is not as good as it was with analog. Oh yeah, cable coverage around here is minimal. I have cable. Folks in the next towns out from Burlington don't have cable (or DSL, but that's another story). And not everyone has a clear line of sight to satellites.

The US DTV rollout has been an on-going shambles. It looks like they are going to procede with it whether digital works or not. I wouldn't bet that they don't turn analog back on about 30-60 days after they turn it off. There are possibly going to be a LOT more complaints than anyone anticipates.

I'm not against digital, but the entire roll out in the US has been a textbook study in how NOT to manage a technology upgrade. We'll see what happens in about ten months.

Re:And will any of this $$$...

[xaxa]

I don't really think you can apply your country's pricing to the cost of the devices in the United States. Here the cheapest they go for is about $60. So to say that it's half the cost of a $40 voucher doesn't exactly make sense. If there weren't vouchers from the state (and there aren't in the UK), you can bet they'd be $40 cheaper ;-)

Re:And will any of this $$$...

[cdrudge]

Those are UK Freeview tuners. Which are cheaper specifically because they do not receive HD. The US went for HD from the start, which costs more initially, but it also means that we won't have to toss out a bunch of electronics all over again to maybe get HD by 2012, like will happen in the UK. Some of us have been getting HD for over four years now.

DTV != HDTV. The cheap or free tuners (after coupon) are not high definition, they are only standard. The US is switching over to a digital television...which just happens to include some high definition programming.

Re:And will any of this $$$...

[CastrTroy]

The nice thing about analog, was that you could get 1/2 a station. Analog degrade gracefully. Sometimes you lose a bit of the picture, or the sound is a little garbled, but you can at least get something. It's kind of like watching Youtube. The quality is terrible, but at least you can make out what's going on. Anybody with satellite can probably tell you that when you get a bad signal, the whole thing drops out and becomes completely unwatchable. I know many people with satellite, and often when there's just bad weather, the whole thing just doesn't work. I hope the same won't be true for digital broadcasts.

Re:And will any of this $$$...

[ydrol]

The US really needed to move to HD faster because NTSC is nasty.

Re:And will any of this $$$...

[Megane]

I never said the converter box tuners output HD. But they must still receive and decode HD signals. Why? Because that's the only thing out there for them to receive. (Did you see where I used the word "down-convert"?) Most US stations are only broadcasting their main programming over an HD signal.

Freeview boxes have no capability to receive an HD signal. (In fact, the UK hasn't even finalized the specs on HD yet!) The UK will have to simulcast an SD signal for the old SD-only Freeview boxes "forever". Once that stops, they become doorstops. And there's a certain Doctor out there who can tell you that "forever" often isn't.

Re:And will any of this $$$...

[Trip Ericson]

I would be interested to know what market you live in (or what stations you receive) that only 3 of 8 are on the air. I can't say I've heard of any market with such low numbers.

Re:And will any of this $$$...

[BUL2294]

DTV != HDTV. The cheap or free tuners (after coupon) are not high definition, they are only standard.

You need to clarify your statement here. The converter boxes are required to down-convert all ATSC digital channels, both HDTV and SDTV , including 16x9 1080i, using an analog connection (RF, composite, or S-Video) to a TV/VCR/display. RF and composite connectors are required of all converter boxes available thru this program. S-Video connections are permitted, but anything higher than S-Video (specifically DVI, HDMI, Component, Ethernet, Firewire, and 802.11 wireless) is expressly prohibited.

Not every HDTV channel has a multiplexed SDTV version of that same channel, and requiring one would use up bandwidth, degrading the primary HDTV channel's picture mode (i.e. down from 1080i to 720p).

NTIA at the US-DOC has a very readable document listing the requirements for a CECB--a Coupon-Eligible Converter Box. It's too bad that the NTIA didn't "lock-down" the design more as CECBs will have differing feature sets (i.e. program guide, S-Video, etc.)

Re:And will any of this $$$...

[plague3106]

And there is the seldom mentioned problem that analog TV viewers tend to be folks living on small incomes, fixed incomes, or both. They don't necessarily have even $20 to spare.

If you don't have $20 to spare, then I would think watching TV should be the least of your worries.

Re:And will any of this $$$...

[TheRaven64]

The nice thing about digital is that it includes a lot of redundant error correction information so that you can lose a lot of the signal before you lose any of the picture. My parents live in a hilly area and their picture quality went up significantly when they switched to digital. When conditions are really bad, they see artefacts (usually blocks of primary colours), but most of the time they have a crisp clear signal where they used to have a fuzzy one.

Re:And will any of this $$$...

[Anonymous Coward]

>Windows 3.1x calc: 3.11 - 3.10 = 0.00
No offense but you need to get a fresh joke.

Re:And will any of this $$$...

[drsquare]

I hope the same won't be true for digital broadcasts.

It is. Most of the channels are compressed to fuck, so a single drop of rain or a less than perfect signal is enough to make them unwatchable.

Re:And will any of this $$$...

[happymellon]

I think they went for SD over the air because:
1. It was cheaper
2. The digital signal provides a much better picture than the old analogue one anyway that most people wouldn't care
3. Bandwidth over the air is in short supply. Unless your going MPEG4, then HD over the air is a bad idea. The UK has SD over the air. It's the US that's going to have to upgrade again because they did HD over the air in MPEG2.
4. The BBC and ITV have other ideas for HD http://freesat.co.uk/

Re:And will any of this $$$...

[happymellon]

Why would they replace the OTA SD signal with HD? surely the next step is to drop OTA TV to free up the bandwidth. I can see it now, FreeInt to watch all the on demand TV to can eat. Though thats for another two decades.

Re:And will any of this $$$...

[Anpheus]

Economics still work if a voucher is in play, it just sets a minimum price. (It makes no sense to offer the converter at $39 when you're guaranteed to get at least one dollar more as long as your customers are rational.)

If one company is selling them at $60 and one is selling them at $50, the guy selling for $50 is actually selling at half the price for the consumer.

Re:And will any of this $$$...

[kextyn]

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Over The Air HD does NOT take up bandwidth because it is "over the air." You just need an antenna and an HD tuner to get it. It's similar to FM radio. Do they have to provide more bandwidth for each radio that is tuning in? No, because the tuner is just picking up the frequency and receiving it. Internet radio on the other hand requires additional bandwidth for each individual player that is receiving the music. You can liken internet radio to cable programming in this case to see how they differ from OTA. So why would they want to stop sending OTA HD? In a lot of places the OTA is BETTER than what you are able to get with the cable provider (see the article on Comcast's crappy compression.)

Re:And will any of this $$$...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're wrong, but correcting you would probably take quite some time and a copy of a high school physics text book, so I wont do it now. Suffice to say that bandwidth applies to broadcast signals.

Re:And will any of this $$$...

[happymellon]

OTA broadcasts don't take up any bandwidth? Why are there any complaints about the whitespace movement, and why do they allocate out bands? DTV (In HD or SD) is a stream of data. They use MPEG compression on the stream because you can only send a certain amount on data over that frequency using modulation. It is the same principal as wi-fi, but only one way. Otherwise we would have gigabit wireless.

I'm afraid you need to look up multiplexing on DTV and see why some channels go up and down in quality depending on what else is being broadcast on that channel.

Oh and my original thought was about UK DTV not moving to HD OTA, but dropping DTV OTA and moving to internet over the TV channels for higher bandwidth, the US is not going to move to free HD over Sat so that argument is moot. (The point being that the BBC owns bandwidth and ISP's are being dicks)

Re:And will any of this $$$...

[Dogtanian]

I know we're on a slightly different system here, but they start at about £10 which is equivalent to $20, half the value of the vouchers that your government is dishing out for the switchover! As I mentioned elsewhere, that was probably a below-cost loss leader. Excluding that factor, the "true" retail price- including even the slimmest profit margin- is probably nearer £20 than £10.

Re:And will any of this $$$...

[Anonymous Coward]

If they were $20 now in the US, its a safe bet that they would jump to $60 on February 17, 2009.

Re:And will any of this $$$...

[Megane]

You two are talking about different meanings of the word "bandwidth". It's the internet bandwidth which is why BBC HD over internet will have problems becoming reality any time soon. In fact, even non-HD BBC over the internet is causing troubles right now.

OTA doesn't take up internet bandwidth. It uses broadcast bandwidth, which is one-way only, but just fine for this purpose. In the USA, that's 6MHz of spectrum bandwidth, which transports about 19Mbits/sec of data bandwidth. That's about twice the maximum rate of DVD video.

Re:And will any of this $$$...

[budgenator]

Just because it's Over-The-Air doesn't mean it doesn't use bandwidth, an analog TV reciever receives signals beginning at 54MHz and has a channel every 6 MHz up to 588MHz OTA (87 channels), newer TV receive more channels but are only used on cable, the Television band has a width of 534 MHz. The whole FM band occupies one TV channel between channel 7 and channel 8. The Digital channels are compressed and occupy less than the 6MHz so other new services can be slipped in the spaces opened up by the conversion.

Re:And will any of this $$$...

[Anonymous Coward]

It depends. The the ATSC standard is actually quite robust; a picture that would be almost unwatchable in analog NTSC should display perfectly in ATSC.

The bad news is that the broadcasters know this, and so they are using very much lower power with their ATSC broadcasts. You just can't win.

Re:And will any of this $$$...

[Rick17JJ]

There don't seem to be any digital stations available yet where I live. I receive most of my television stations through a privately owned translator which is on a mountain top between here and Phoenix, which is the nearest large city. It is only broadcasting in analog. According to the dtv2009.gov website, "currently there is no requirement for translators and low-power stations to convert to digital." It sounds like they may be allowed to continue broadcasting in NTSC analog for a while longer.

I have gone to the antennaweb.org website and asked for the predicted list of analog and digital stations for my address. It says that there are "no digital stations predicted to serve this location." But, it does say that I should be getting six analog stations.

I am still waiting for my $40 coupon to arrive so that I can get a converter box and see if I can actually get any of the new digital stations.

Re:And will any of this $$$...

[Random Destruction]

the other two replies were cryptic or useless, so here goes:

Bandwidth, when speaking about transmitted signals, refers to the chunk of airwaves taken by that signal. TV and FM take up a huge band of frequencies while sending relatively little data. For example, FM radio stations are spaced 200khz apart, so for each station there is 200khz worth of frequencies consumed for a single audio signal. Therefore there is a push by some to drop them, and re-allocate the air waves in a more efficient manner.

Re:And will any of this $$$...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if they can't spare $20, they can save on their cable bill for 1-2 months, then go buy the convertor box.

Re:And will any of this $$$...

[Anonymous Coward]

How is 720p a degrade from 1080i when 720p requires a higher data rate?

Re:And will any of this $$$...

[dangitman]

If you don't have $20 to spare, then I would think watching TV should be the least of your worries.

Easy for you to say. If you were broke because, say, you had several kids to feed on a low income - or you were an invalid or otherwise disabled, you'd probably appreciate having TV to occupy the kids, or soothe your own boredom or depression.

Re:And will any of this $$$...

[sjames]

Unfortunately, that's not always the case.

Here, when conditions are perfect the OTA picture is great. if it's windy, raining, or there's too many active butterflies, I have to switch back to analog to see anything at all. Of course, that won't be an option much longer.

I have satellite, but sometimes tape one program and watch another OTA.

Re:And will any of this $$$...

[LocalH]

Incorrect. Many markets do have SD DTV broadcasts, usually as a subchannel riding along with a primary HD stream. My local market has at least four that I can think of offhand, and there might be a couple more I don't know about. This is nowhere near a top market.

I'm sure there are markets with no SD broadcasts but this is not universal, and I would definitely wager that it's not "most" stations as you say.

Re:And will any of this $$$...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're on the right track. You're not just raising the minimum price, though, you're raising the whole demand curve (i.e. the price the consumer is willing to pay) by $40, possibly more due to subjective factors (the customer thinks he's getting a good deal, worries about coupon expiration, etc)

Let's say for the sake of argument the demand curve shifts by $40. The new equilibrium price won't be $40 greater, though, because the two curves meet in a different place. More units will be sold, which means less need for marginal profit to recoup fixed expenses, etc.

We're probably talking about a $20-30 movement in equilibrium price (number pulled out of my ass, but has to be somewhere between 0 and 40).

Re:And will any of this $$$...

[Hoknor]

Or even, so you can watch some public broadcasting for shows that will improve your conversational english and math skills to help qualify yourself for a better job to increase your income.

Re:And will any of this $$$...

[Anonymous Coward]

That was a very entertaining read. It's cute to see who is looking out for who.

TV makers were looking to keep the boxes from competing with their HD offerings (which cost excessive amounts of money and are feature-limited by backroom deals with the MPAA) versus Retail stores that want these boxes to be flexible and backward compatible to anything a consumer might have in their home. It seems both sides were ganged up against geeks that would want to do stuff with the HD stream... the MPAA wins the round because of the limits in the law to only "analog" tvs.. never mind that the first round of HDTVs from 1997 when the specs were written contained poor tuners and only analog inputs because digital inputs weren't invented yet.

I'd like to see bonus points to the first Taiwan maker that hides a digital output under the hood (voids the warranty) but bills it as an "software upgrade" socket. All the TV makers were specifically looking to keep actual HD equipment high priced by disallowing features that qualify, to keep a double standard. (and the MPAA happy).

Re:And will any of this $$$...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the greed of the TV makers and MPAA that's been the problem all along. The signals went live before 2000!!! The MPAA kept trying for digital locks in the signal, that kept the prices of equipment high because TV makers never really wanted to make the boxes until the "broadcast flag" was dealt with. Then the set-top box makers drug their feet waiting for the infighting from the voucher standarde which made all the existing versions of converter boxes off limits for one reason or another. (gotta love pork!)

Digital stations work great. The only problem is that people aren't buying the hardware. The only problems I have with HD have been the reduced tower power, my stations are a good ways away and operate the HD towers with reduced power versus analog. When Analog goes away, hopefully they'll bump the power up and that will fix my problems. I also agree that AFFORDABLE DIGITAL TVs only became available in January of 2007. Not the ones that are only HD, but the cheap ones. That was conveniently AFTER the 2006 holiday (used by retailers to clear out analog stock) and sort of disingenuous to customers to sell them 32" new TVs a month before the law required them to stop... and the converter boxes are only NOW available in quantity.

Re:And will any of this $$$...

[plague3106]

Well, if you can't spare $20, you probably aren't fit to be raising any kids. If you're an invalid and disabled, and have no family or friends that cares about you enough to help you keep TV, well I guess you were an ass. I fail to see how TV would help "soothe" depression or bordom for that matter.

Re:And will any of this $$$...

[BUL2294]

How is 720p a degrade from 1080i when 720p requires a higher data rate?

Wrong. Native resolution of 720p is 1280x720. Native resolution of 1080i is 1920x1080. From a pure number of pixels perspective, 720p has 921,600 pixels x 60 Hz = 55,296,000 pixels of data per second. 1080i has 2,457,600 pixels x 60 Hz / 2 (interlaced) = 73,728,000 pixels of data per second, requiring 33% more bandwidth.

Of course, this doesn't take into account MPEG compression, but even with compression, 1080i requires a lot more bandwidth (I assume ~33% more).

Re:And will any of this $$$...

[dangitman]

I fail to see how TV would help "soothe" depression or bordom for that matter.

Well, if you fail to see that, then it just demonstrates how little you understand about humans. Do you never look for distractions or entertainment? When you have a problem, do you spend 100% of your time and undivided attention facing that problem head-on? Do you spend all your time trying to earn more money?

Re:And will any of this $$$...

[Megane]

Not quite correct. TV spectrum in the US is in three main bands, 2-6, 7-13, and 14+. The channels in each band are indeed spaced 6MHz apart, except 4-5. The FM band is located just above TV channel 6, at 88-108MHz, and channel 7 starts at 175 MHz. That means there's 67 MHz between FM and channel 7.

Re:And will any of this $$$...

[plague3106]

Yes I do. I also, having done nothing but watched TV for even just one week, know that TV is no cure for boredom. If your entire life is TV, what exactly are you being distracted from?

Thrift store TVs

[Megane]

Goodwill and oter thrift stores (and maybe even pawn shops) better hope they don't get noticed for not putting the notice on the TVs themselves. I know that Goodwill has just been sticking up the notice in a random place on the wall or something. And right now thrift stores and pawn shops are probably the main place to find analog-only TV sets. But hey, as long as they have a video input, they're still useful for video games. And they will still work with an external tuner.

On the other hand, I've gotten two satellite tuners with ATSC at thrift stores for ten bucks each. One even had a broken analog NTSC tuner, which I found amusing. Unfortunately I wasted another ten bucks because I didn't realize that the DirecTV H10 and H20 require a satellite subscription to receive ATSC. Bargain hunters, stay away from those two models!

Re:Thrift store TVs

[Craig Davison]

Analog tuners are still fine for analog cable, which doesn't have a cutoff date, and will continue to be available for a long time in many places.

Wal*Mart: looked OK to me

[dpbsmith]

I dislike Wal*Mart. And if they were fined I'm sure they deserved it.

But my personal experience is that I've only seen those notices twice within the last year, and both times were in Wal*Marts. One was in Wisconsin, late last summer; the other in Massachusetts. I didn't see any notices at all when I was recently in Best Buy.

And: the day I received my converter coupons in the mail, which was February 29th--I must have been among the very first to get them--I called Wal*Mart to see if they had converter boxes; they said yes, I got there and they had a huge display of them in a featured location in the aisle just outside their electronics department, the pre-coupon price was $50, and they were ready and happy to process my $40 coupons.

Based on my highly scientific sample size of two, I don't see any indication that Wal*Mart is dragging its feet. Offhand I'd think they're making a good-faith effort to comply. If they haven't been getting the notices up I'd attribute it to general chaos and cluelessness, not to any systematic attempt to unload analog sets on unsuspecting customers.

Re:Wal*Mart: looked OK to me

[garcia]

Offhand I'd think they're making a good-faith effort to comply. If they haven't been getting the notices up I'd attribute it to general chaos and cluelessness, not to any systematic attempt to unload analog sets on unsuspecting customers.

Is there some famous quote about malice and incompetence? I'm sure it applies to any of the retail chain stores that were fined.

That said, I want to know where these fines are going. That's our money after all, just like all the money that they are collecting by selling off the open bandwidth created by forcing us to pay anything for these boxes. I won't go into one of my long rants about how this is another fleecing but I couldn't find anything on the web, yet, about where the funds raised by these fines is going to end up... Anyone else?

Re:Wal*Mart: looked OK to me

[gEvil (beta)]

I didn't see any notices at all when I was recently in Best Buy.

My local Best Buy has been putting big white stickers that explain the situation (in BIG type) on the sides of analog-tuner TV boxes since February 2007. I've never noticed any signage in the TV area (I haven't really looked for the past several months either), but I do know that there has been some sort of hard-to-miss notification.

Re:Wal*Mart: looked OK to me

[ParadigmWl]

Every Walmart in my area has had these signs up for awhile now aswell.

Re:Wal*Mart: looked OK to me

[Anonymous Coward]

I dislike Wal*Mart. ...

the day I received my converter coupons in the mail, which was February 29th--I must have been among the very first to get them--I called Wal*Mart I'm so confused! Why do people give money to organizations they dislike?!

Re:Wal*Mart: looked OK to me

[McGiraf]

"I'm so confused! Why do people give money to organizations they dislike?!"

You beat me to it. Dut then again i do pay taxes. But Wal Mart is much easier to avoid.

Re:Wal*Mart: looked OK to me

[Vectronic]

1. I Dislike WalMart Cause Thats Cool
2. I Use My Coupon Cause I'm "Stickin It To The Man"
3. ???
4. WalMart Profits.

I can't really claim innocence, however its not really WalMart that i'm against, its the people who shop there... religiously... the people who get excited about it "im going to WalMart this weekend"... "I spent $50 in WalMart and got a shitload of bullshit"...ive never bought anything from WalMart, but I often give in and say stuff like "yeah, its easy to find just go to WalMart or something"... so, really im adverstising for them...

Re:Wal*Mart: looked OK to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there some famous quote about malice and incompetence? I'm sure it applies to any of the retail chain stores that were fined. This probably won't be visible since I'm posting as AC, but the quote in question is Hanlon's Razor:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

Re:Wal*Mart: looked OK to me

[Anonymous Coward]

I won't go into one of my long rants about how this is another fleecing but I couldn't find anything on the web, yet, about where the funds raised by these fines is going to end up...

Iraq.

Re:Wal*Mart: looked OK to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Based on my highly scientific sample size of two, I don't see any indication that Wal*Mart is dragging its feet.

I agree, I think that the problem comes down to individual management at individual stores.

I go into my local Target and Best Buy all the time, and I've always seen those warning notices on the relevant merchandise. The result of those FCC fines will be higher prices for all consumers, due to some bad local stores.

By the way, I applied for my rebate coupons back in February, and still haven't received them. Is anybody else experiencing a delay? This is ridiculous, since you only have three months to use them from the time they are issued!!

over the air

[Anonymous Coward]

receive over-the-air broadcasts

Maybe after september 11 ppl are afraid to fly.

Why would they hesitate?

[wbean]

Why would any store hesitate to post that notice? It's one of the most opaque examples of beureaucratic English I've seen in a long time: Run-on sentences; subordinate clauses out of place and badly punctuated; any good Junior High English teacher could get a full hour's lecture out of it.

Re:Why would they hesitate?

[cwgatling]

I agree with you about the poor syntax, but they're breaking the law by not putting them up. Supermarkets (in my experience) are not choosy about spelling or grammar on their displays. Also, it's 'bureaucratic', not 'beureaucratic'.

Re:Why would they hesitate?

[Anonymous Coward]

While I agree that the statement could be better worded, it is in fact 100% correct with regards to grammar and punctuation.

Re:Why would they hesitate?

[wbean]

Yup. I noticed that one right after I failed to use the 'preview' button :)

Re:Why would they hesitate?

[Thugthrasher]

I think it's more laziness/miscommunication amongst the employees for many of those retailers. I used to work at Circuit City and it was AGES ago that we were "required" to put up those signs in our store. Our store did it, but I know from walking into other stores that they didn't. And I know for a fact it's the same with Best Buy and Wal-Mart because I have friends who work or worked for them within the last year. I think it more comes to lack of execution on the local level, rather than a corporate level.

Re:Why would they hesitate?

[budgenator]

That sounds about right, I know more about Wal-Mart's corp policies from reading slashdot than my daughter-inlaw does from the meetings at the local store. The problem in a lot of places is they try to promote from within, which is great if you can hire quality entry-levels but most of these places can't or quickly lose the few they do.

Just the cost of posting to slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Well mine is selling strictly from inventory. No new analog sets.

Prolonging the agony

[itsdapead]

At least it sounds as if the US are going to yank the elastoplast off in one go and just switch in 2009. Here in the UK they're pussyfooting around by turning it off region by region over a 4 year period.

The TV ads are dumb - too: they're clearly designed by marketdroids who's aim in life is to establish "the Digital tick" logo and their cute little robot mascot as Brands - which is not the same as delivering factual information to people who - if they haven't got the message after 5 years - need a gentle tap with the cluebat.

Me, I'd do it like this:

(Burst of interference followed by black screen)

Voicover (the woman from "Weakest Link" or similar):

If you don't get a digital TV box in the next few months, your screen will go black permanently.

So take some personal responsibility and find out about what you need - and check that someone's sorting it all out for the little old lady next door, too. In fact, while you're at it, check that she's eating properly and her heater is working because if she's that isolated and can't even save up £30 for a Digibox, missing Eastenders for a week is going to be the least of her worries.

For pity's sake, people, its been in the news for the last 5 years and at the end of the day its only TV - its not like we're turning off the water supply or something!

...but then I was born with a defect in the gene responsible for political expediency.

Re:Prolonging the agony

[Megane]

I would raise the stakes and have Anne Droid (from that Doctor Who episode) chargin' her laser at a bunch of people who didn't get a converter box. It's just too bad that the laser won't work through the telly, becuase I hear you folks over there could use a reduction in the chav population.

Re:Prolonging the agony

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't get a digital TV box in the next few months, your screen will go black permanently.
So take some personal responsibility and find out about what you need - and check that someone's sorting it all out for the little old lady next door, too. In fact, while you're at it, check that she's eating properly and her heater is working because if she's that isolated and can't even save up £30 for a Digibox, missing Eastenders for a week is going to be the least of her worries.

For pity's sake, people, its been in the news for the last 5 years and at the end of the day its only TV - its not like we're turning off the water supply or something!

Hahahaha. I'd pay money to see that commercial on TV.

Re:Prolonging the agony

[CmSpuD]

Heh, I agree completely with your sentiment. Half of us don't need spoon feeding, and the half that do are easily sorted by those in the know. I wish they'd take the kid gloves off, we're not kids.

Re:Prolonging the agony

[AndyGJ]

This seems to be the way the adverts are going ;)

From time trumpet (on the bbc and awesome).

Re:Prolonging the agony

[PhotoGuy]

Ummm, "yank the elastoplast off in one go?" Wasn't the mandatory conversion supposed to take place close to a decade ago, but kept getting put off?

(I could be confusing this with the plan here in Canada; apologies for any incorrect facts; I'm on dialup this weekend, arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrghhhhhhhhhhhh [now, those bytes will cost me], and so doing much research into what I remember is impractical...)

Re:Prolonging the agony

[Generic Guy]

At least it sounds as if the US are going to yank the elastoplast off in one go and just switch in 2009. Here in the UK they're pussyfooting around by turning it off region by region over a 4 year period.

Keep in mind that the FCC was originally trying to get "full HD implementation" by 2002, which obviously never happened. Now it is 'digital broadcast' but not necessarily HiDef. And they've been 'discussing' it since at least 1996 that I can recall. When it became clear that 2002 wasn't going to work, they put in a deadline for OTA-DTV broadcasts of 2006, which was then pushed back at least twice now. The fact that the FCC allowed the TV industry to come up with something on the order of 18(!) ATSC standards instead of picking one (or maybe two: SD and HD) hasn't helped either.

So, the Feb 2009 date is now only 'firm' after hedging around for years and letting the industry whine and meander for a very long time.

Re:Prolonging the agony

[nanoakron]

I like it. Catchy.

Re:Prolonging the agony

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that the FCC allowed the TV industry to come up with something on the order of 18(!) ATSC standards instead of picking one (or maybe two: SD and HD) hasn't helped either.

Yet as far as I know, the TV industry only uses three of them: 704x480i29.97 (4:3), 1280x720p59.94, and 1920x1080i29.97. And they occasionally pick their own standard: my local NBC weather subchannel uses 528x480i29.97, a lower resolution commonly used on digital cable.

This is somewhat disappointing, as 1920x1080p24 is an ATSC standard and is perfect for broadcasting movies and the many TV shows shot at 24p. Instead we still have to deal with the 3-2 telecine field cadence.

Re:Prolonging the agony

[LocalH]

Care to cite your source that states the FCC ever required any form of HD broadcasting at all?

the tv's will still work, duh

[timmarhy]

you can plug in that tv from 1990 and it'll still work people... talk about fud

Re:the tv's will still work, duh

[dmgxmichael]

you can plug in that tv from 1990 and it'll still work people... talk about fud I bet my Atari 2600 would work with it if I'd ever bother to dig it out of the closet.

Re:the tv's will still work, duh

[Albert Sandberg]

Actually, your atari 2600 mig work way worse on a newer set than an older one, because of video/audio lag.

Re:the tv's will still work, duh

[dmgxmichael]

Actually, your atari 2600 mig work way worse on a newer set than an older one, because of video/audio lag. I find it hilarious to think that a newer tv able to take the Xbox 360 or PS3's input would have trouble with the humble 2600 - but it wouldn't surprise me either.

Re:the tv's will still work, duh

[Hoknor]

It's not that it would have trouble with the input, it's just that the delay from converting the data from the old format to a format your new TV can see takes processor time meaning what is taking place on your screen is what the 2600 told it to show two seconds ago. There is a delay for the 360 and PS3 as well, it just happens to be small enough to not notice.

Re:the tv's will still work, duh

[Albert Sandberg]

Yeah, if you run it in the native resolution no scaling is needed to be performed, so running a ps3 on a 1080p screen is a non-issue, however, scaling up from old formats sucks big time. This is a rather big issue... makes playing guitar on ps2 on a new set practicly impossible since it delays the audio as well (it's aware of the lag).

They can all appeal this to reduce fine

[kwrxxx]

The FCC is usually pretty easy on companies on appeal. This NAL is not the final word and I wouldn't be surprised if the fines are reduced to nothing.

And where does the money from the fines go?

[3seas]

... is it used to purchase digital to analog converters for those who bought such analog TV's?

Very doubtful!!!

So the consumer gets screwed and based on that screw job the legal system, whatever it is, then screws the screwers.
Ultimately the consumers get nothing and the advertisers have less audience.

So in the end the advertisers get screwed too.

I'm confused, Who benefits?

Re:And where does the money from the fines go?

[Vectronic]

This may sound somewhat conspiratory... but they stop Analog TV, they stop Radio Broadcast TV... "they" end up having complete control over TV... who can see it, for what price, and whats on the channels... because Bob, In South Dakota cant afford to upgrade to Digital, and his little 15watt transmitter is now void... there goes the local channel 10, you gotta watch Big Brother 16 in 1080p, cause... thats your only option..its on all 255 channels...

Kinda like the inability to protest in many places these days...

I wouldnt be suprised if HAM/CB/etc radio's start being banned aswell... and only Satelitte radio will be put in new cars, and electronics... etc...

Anyone still broadcasting AM/FM etc will be fined, or jailed for disturbing the airwaves... cause the military needs all the airwaves now... cant have simpletons listening in...

Re:And where does the money from the fines go?

[budgenator]

listen all you want, with frequency hopping, digital spread spectrum, fully encrypted military communications your not going to hear more than a chirp or two.

Re:And where does the money from the fines go?

[LocalH]

This tripe got modded to 4? Insightful?

Wow, the mods-on-crack really gravitated to this post.

Digital transition means "they" end up having complete control of TV? Hogwash.

Big Brother 16 in 1080p? The FCC has never mandated HDTV broadcasts, and even if they did, the converter boxes will downsample any HDTV broadcasts for display on a analog set.

Ham/CB banned? AM/FM banned? You're a fucking idiot and you should leave your /. login at the door on your way out.

Horrible

[Anonymous Coward]

What a horrible example of government regulating a functioning free market.

Yeah, right...

What - *Who* did *What*?

[pla]

The FCC has fined 11 retailers and television manufacturers

The FCC did what now?

The FCC has the authority to regulate the use of a few communications-valuable portions of the RF spectrum.

To the best of my knowledge, they have no authority to regulate trade. We even have a similarly-named governmental TLA for that - The FTC.

Anyone care to 'splain it to me, by what stretch of the imagination fining retailers satisfies the goal of allocating spectrum for the greatest public good?

Re:What - *Who* did *What*?

[stephanruby]

The FCC did what now? The FCC has the authority to regulate the use of a few communications-valuable portions of the RF spectrum. To the best of my knowledge, they have no authority to regulate trade. We even have a similarly-named governmental TLA for that - The FTC. Anyone care to 'splain it to me, by what stretch of the imagination fining retailers satisfies the goal of allocating spectrum for the greatest public good?

By your logic, then the FDA shouldn't able to fine supermarkets for changing the expiration dates on prepackaged meat, the IRS shouldn't be able to fine retailers for selling cigarettes without the federal sticker, and cops shouldn't be able to fine quickie-marts for selling alcohol to underage kids. This should all be under the purview of the FTC right?

Overlapping and criss-crossing jurisdictions is a fact in this country. I'm not saying this actual fine is justified. But as an agency that regulates the spectrum, I don't think the FCC should only be limited to regulating and fining manufacturers and broadcasters, the supply chain for consumer electronics is a long one. Sometimes, it's just too costly to impose all your regulations and fining at the manufacturer level, or at the border and customs levels. For instance at the customs level, only 2% of shipping containers actually get opened, and I'm sure each customs official already has a thousand things to check already.

In any case, if something should be challenged, it should be the FCC's fines on Howard Stern (before he moved to satellite). I'm not really a fan of Howard Stern, but I personally think that bad words used on the radio have even less to do with spectrum allocation than forcing retailers to tell consumers the spectrum allocation has changed. And if congress really wants to regulate morals -- it should do just that, create a Federal Morals Commission, not regulate Morals through the back door of some other agency.

Re:What - *Who* did *What*?

[Detritus]

To the best of my knowledge, they have no authority to regulate trade. We even have a similarly-named governmental TLA for that - The FTC.

Your knowledge is deficient. Congress provided the FCC with that authority when they enacted the All-Channel Receiver Act of 1962.

Re:What - *Who* did *What*?

[Anonymous Coward]

George. W. Bush.

The US Government.

That is all.

Re:What - *Who* did *What*?

[Attila Dimedici]

The FCC has the authority it has been given by Congress. The FTC has the authority it has been given by Congress. When Congress passed the law to mandate the transition to digital, they included provisions giving the FCC the authority to enforce the changeover.
The FCC does not "allocate spectrum for the greatest public good". The FCC allocates the spectrum according to guidelines laid down by Congress.

Perhaps not an issue any more at Walmart

[optikos]

My local Walmart now sells only TVs (including CRT Emerson & Durabrand/Funai models) that have an digital ATSC DTV tuner (not HDTV). There was not a single NTSC-only TV for sale there one month ago. Although I don't remember the exact price of NTSC models at Walmart in recent years/months, the price of a CRT-based ATSC DTV seemed to be comparable to what I remember they sold NTSC TVs for. For example, because I had an existing platform-style small-TV wall-mount already installed, a month ago I bought a Durabrand 19-inch CRT-based ATSC DTV manufactured by Funai for $129 plus sales tax. 19-inch CRT NTSC TVs could not have been much cheaper than that in recent years.

It has the most out-of-vogue highly-curved very-much-NOT-flatscreen CRT that I have seen since the 1960s, but it works well with a crystal-clear 4x3 ATSC SD digital picture, although I choose the letterbox mode most of the time.

How about all the "HD" antennas?

[digitalaudiorock]

Companies don't really like telling you that thing you are about to buy sucks. How about fining everyone that spent the last few years marketing UHF only antennas as "HD antennas" when in fact, huge numbers of stations all over the country are moving their digital broadcast to their old VHF frequency in 2009.

At least addressing an analog TV doesn't require climbing up on your roof.

Re:How about all the "HD" antennas?

[Craig Davison]

Someday soon a UHF antenna might be all you need. There's talk of stopping broadcasts on channels 2-6 (these are the VHF-LO channels, lower frequency than FM radio, that require the really long VHF antenna). You can pick up channels 7+ just fine with many UHF antennas.

Re:How about all the "HD" antennas?

[NateTech]

It's not talk, it's happening -- but not as a regulatory thing.

The stations who've stayed on the low-VHF section of the band have found that they have LOWER performance (all other things being equal) on their digital transmitters vs. their analog ones, on their old VHF frequencies, for various reasons.

Most of the large network engineering departments figured out a number of reasons why this happens, and mandated that the rest of their affiliates instead plan to move to UHF.

Stations are indeed moving to UHF, but using the data stream located (smartly) in the HDTV protocol to "re-number" themselves back to their original channel numbers in the user's TV set, so they don't lose their marketing as "Channel 2" or whatever. Their real transmitter may be up at UHF channel 35, but the TV will tell the end user "02" or similar and when "flipping" channels, people will find 2 below 3 below 4... etc.

Stations also find that moving to UHF in this new technology doesn't make them look like "inferiors" to the "big guys" on the lower channels (remember when TV sets stopped at channel 13?).

So, there's no reason for them not to take advantage of the higher RF gain of same-size antennas at the higher frequencies, and move up and out of the prevalent RF noise at and around VHF in most large cities. Done right (no significant feed line losses, bigger feedline to the new antenna) the same sized UHF antenna will have significantly more RF gain vs. the old VHF antenna... especially with technology updates in these giant circularly-polarized antennas used in broadcast.

And there's also the reality that the Cable and Satellite providers are compressing the original source signals from the networks to different degrees. I'm sure eventually this will lead to "compression limits" being written into contracts, it's already started with the NFL... I hear. But in the meantime until people figure out that their "150 channels of HDTV" from a satellite provider are actually 150 channels of inferior picture quality HD channels... the best way to see the HDTV signal the way it was intended to be seen, is by receiving it off-air from the content creators themselves, the networks.

Of course, this doesn't work for "cable" channels, like HBO, etc... but bet your boots that their contracts with the providers will start to limit the amount of compression they're allowed to do.

All fascinating stuff. Good stuff, too. It looks good when done right!

HDTV et al;

[zoomshorts]

When my eyes start seeing in HD Digital, analog will be just fine for me.
My eyes will degrade from now until my death. Why should I be forced to spend
more money, on a technology that will be outdated by mother nature?

The 'new' technology uses more dangerous technology, that the CRT era.
Why is stupidity being pushed to support a specific industry? Forty dollar
coupon??? The converter boxes should be FREE , since the government mandated it!

6.6 million?

[oDDmON oUT]

To any *one* of those companies that's peanuts, chump change, zilch, zero, nada, an executive retreat.

Now $60M, or $600M, spread across them all would have gotten their attention and made a "Don't do this again" statement.

Anything else is just toothless posturing.

Re:6.6 million?

[Anonymous Coward]

I echo this sentiment but for very well proven cases of copyright infringement (i.e. music downloads)

The fines that are imposed appear to typically be in the range that a working is not unduly inconvenienced by it, they may even risk to do it again. I feel the finances of the individual should be evaluated so that in every case a fine is imposed so that it HURTS THEM VERY BADLY, and they have learnt a lesson NEVER EVER to do it again - also, to serve as a statement in front of others, and use them as an example. Nothing short of forcing a remortgage would force the average American to learn that lesson.

They'll make the money back

[chaosdot]

If there wasn't a coupon program, I'd say this thing would retail for $15 and they'd make money. Charge $49.00 and the consumer is out 10 bucks, thinks it's a bargain. Meanwhile the stores get every penny of that coupon for something that cost them $10. Considering they have DVD players right next to these things for just $29, it pretty much shows they are making immense profits off those boxes at government expense.

Re:They'll make the money back

[Thundersnatch]

they are making immense profits off those boxes at taxpayer expense.

There, fixed that for ya. It amazes my how many people think the "government" has all this money and is some separate entity. Like, it's okay to sue the local township for $1M because you wore high heels in January and slipped on the ice. After all, you're only screwing "the government" out of $1M. In the end, you're truly screwing your friends and neighbors.

Linux TV-Tuners.

[B5_geek]

Can anybody point me to a Linux compatible D-TV(good) or HDTV(better) tv tuner that will allow for full myth-tv integration? I am moving soon (and not replacing my Bell ExpressVu Sat. TV) as I will live close to Detroit, Michigan and a cheap TV-tower will give me all the channels that I would want to watch.

Re:Linux TV-Tuners.

[sricetx]

I have a Kworld ATSC 110 that works great and didn't cost very much. I don't know if it is still available. The ATSC 115 is essentially the same thing.

Re:Linux TV-Tuners.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can get the Kworld ATSC 115 off of newegg

kill your television (yet another reason)

[drDugan]

yet another reason to remove the TV from your life. now we have a device that not only shuts off your brain and delivers unhelpful marketing into your home, but on top of that, it has government support to encourage a digital system that is both more expensive than working alternatives and allows increased information access control.

every time I see places where consumer marketplaces have heavy handed intervention from government (read: not regulation to protect consumers, but rules or supports to direct consumer behavior), it seems there is something wrong. corporations a bit too close to the state.

in a healthy marketplace, if digital TV products and services can't out compete and win vs. the analog systems, then they would lose. period. if the government is going to come in and with the corporate-directed, lobby-directed practice of mandating a specific technology -- just because it works better for the business practice of some large companies -- well, this is not in most people's interest.

the truculent refusal to admit the changing nature of content distribution and actions like this with digital TV on the part of existing content and hardware companies has already has created a vibrant black market for their products. luckly many people are building alternatives...

Re:kill your television (yet another reason)

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking as someone who lives in a country that already did the switch, it really isn't that bad.

I really dislike the government pandering to corporations, but this doesn't seem like a case of that.

In terms of over-the-air, we get the same channels as before, for most they have better quality, even more so if you have the right equipment (our digital broadcasts are all SD, but look very nice upscaled to 1080p using proper equipment). Additionally, there are a couple of competing pay-packages available for over-the-air (there were none before) which give you decent selections of extra channels.

For those with cable (not quite as ubiquitous as in the US), the difference is much of the same, except there are even more channels available.

But perhaps the biggest change for consumers is VCRs being replaced by PVRs...which has its ups and downs. The big downside is that almost all PVRs on the market at the moment are kind of buggy. The upside is that they are so convenient that people are less dependent on seeing "what's on now" and instead choose whichever shows they want, and watch them when they want, skipping commercials while they do it.

At this very moment, I'm visiting the US, and during this entire time, I've barely turned on the TV. Part of the reason is that I'm so accustomed to always being able to skip commercials that being forced to watch them feels like I'm resorting to a fundamentally inferior kind of service.

Additionally, the hotel has wide-screen TVs with regular 4:3 SD broadcasts stretched to fill the whole screen...awful. I prefer big black bars and a smaller picture to a totally screwed up aspect ratio. ...oh and I don't even watch a lot of TV at home, but when I do, I expect proper aspect ratios and no commercials or the ability to skip them.

Re:kill your television (yet another reason)

[Anonymous Coward]

perhaps you ought to think a bit about the tragedy of the commons and the concept of market inertia. did your "healthy marketplace" come up with the internet or space travel?

ugh...between people like you and the mortgage crisis, I'm becoming less and less of a libertarian every day.

Re:kill your television (yet another reason)

[XNine]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, however I wonder how much research you've done to form yours? According to the commercial I just saw it said-- OH HEY! Look! Look! There's a new Geico Caveman Commerical on! I love those silly cavemen...

Re:kill your television (yet another reason)

[Howitzer86]

I'm not sure, but couldn't they make digital broadcasts impossible to record on video tape and DVR? Just imagine, another marathon comes around and you're not able to record it. To my knowledge, I think it's impossible to prevent a person from recording an analog signal. Although, like an attempt at recording a DVD to tape, they can prevent you from recording a digital broadcast. This whole thing is being pushed by big media. With the Democrats coming into full control of the government, no doubt big media will have absolute control over what we see, hear, and communicate. It's not just TV, I worry about the Internet as well. In a few years there won't even be enough ip addresses to go around. You'll be browsing some filtered sub-internet via a proprietary iTV device. Mark my words.

Re:kill your television (yet another reason)

[LocalH]

That is more or less implausible, by the very digital receivers that the whole voucher system is meant to promulgate, which have analog outputs. The only way to do so would be to essentially mandate that the manufacturers pay to output Macrovision (which is not the same as VCRs being required to honor Macrovision - adding it to the signal yourself requires payment of license fees to Macrovision). Sure, it's possible, but I don't see it happening.

They can't turn analog back on

[Skapare]

They can't turn analog back on because a lot of the changes being made (e.g. stations changing channels, stations doing flash cuts, etc) depend on other changes, and many of those depend on the way digital works. For example there are a set of specific interference avoidance technical requirements to avoid one station interfering with another. These rules differ for analog and digital. So the actual operating frequencies had to change. Quite many of the stations will be switching to an all new channel different than either the analog or the digital channel they previously had. Many of them never went to full power on digital. Some never got their old digital on the air. A few never even got a 2nd digital channel to work with. And a few others have already shut off their analog (most stations can shut off their analog now, if they wish).

Digital does allow a tighter packing of TV channels geographically and spectrally. Channels 52 to 69 are mostly in use now, but will not be available after 2009-2-17. The existing set of available channels can't support so many stations operating in analog. Once the transisition is complete, the frequencies occupied by the defunct channels go to other services, many of which are getting ready to make use of them.

Unlike rolling out a new database server or such, this is a change that simply cannot be undone. It may be possible at the last minute to delay the change a few days or weeks. You may find the FCC could delay the analog cutoff, or the move from transitional digital frequency to final digital frequency, for individual stations for a very short time from (possibly with interim low power to avoid interference). While I won't be surprised if a few of these happen, there will be very few at most. Otherwise they really are committed; they cannot undo this without catastrophic consequences.

The one event I fear most in getting this transition done on time is a possible serious winter storm that could happen. They chose a bad date for this; a time when the midwest and northeast often see higher levels of winter precipitation. Given that the cutover requires changes at remote transmitter sites in many cases, and changes up on the tower in others, a few stations could be in a position of being unable to make the changes on the designated date if bad winter weather happens to be active on that date. A few have planned to make the change in the fall before then.

BTW, digital does work. I and many other people are getting more channels clearer than before. In my case, I have tested with "rabbit ears". With analog, I cannot get any watchable signals at all (blocked by a hill in one direction toward closer stations, and more distant from stations in the other clear direction). With digital, I can get 2 stations crystal clear. I'll be ordering a full size antenna in the next week or so. I may well be able to get enough local stations to get off the Comcast teat.

320x240, 640x480

[westlake]

My eyes will degrade from now until my death. Why should I be forced to spend more money, on a technology that will be outdated by mother nature?

I'll take that to mean you can't let go of that Packard Bell PC and 12" monitor from the Win 3.1 days.

What about Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

Slightly OT, but what's the Canadian take on digital broadcasting?

I'm a USian living ~45 miles from the Canadian border, and occasionally like to tune in the CBC. I can pull in their analog signal fine, but as far as I can tell, they don't have a digital broadcast.

Do they plan to bend over for the Americans again, or do they have some other plan for TV broadcasts?

Re:What about Canada

[Craig Davison]

Canada is requiring most stations (those not in remote northern regions) to be broadcasting ATSC by August, 2011. Certain areas close to the border might stop broadcasting on channels 52-69 (the 700MHz spectrum) before then.

Depending where you live, you might already be able to get CBC in digital. Vancouver and Toronto have a number of digital broadcast channels including CBC.

Oh Really?

[Nom du Keyboard]

Analog-only TVs should continue to work as before with cable

Oh really? Cable systems are trying to switch off bandwidth-hogging analog as fast as they can too.

Best Buy

[Anonymous Coward]

I would be floored if you found an analog-only TV at Best Buy. Maybe thats why they couldn't find any signs? There would be no product to warn customers away from. Best Buy made it a point to simply stop selling TV's that did not have the equipment necessary to handle this changeover.

At Best Buy?

[sew3521]

I'm surprised that there are still Best Buys out there that still have analog sets... The only reason I can think of any Best Buy store having an analog TV is if it were one of the oddball TVs that get sent back from service and are marked down to cost simply because they are so old. I will have to check the stock system when I go in tomorrow to see if i can find any Best Buy in my district that still has the old Analog TVs. [quote]The companies fined "willfully and repeatedly violated" the FCC rules, the agency said in a news release.[/quote] This really bothers me considering I know all of the shit we had to do a year and a half ago to et ready for this transition, I also know that we have an advertisement which plays on the Home Theater loop every 15-20 min about analog TV.

View from the trenches.

[Cyno01]

I work for one of these companies, wont say which because i dont even like to admit it. But with our company at least, it must be isolated stores.

We had the signs on all our analog TVs since i started there a year and a half ago, and almost a year ago we stopped carrying analog sets altogether. We still have the notice up on the one analog VCR/DVD combo that we have a ton of overstock in...

Ive been fairly pleased with our stores small part in all this. Me and the other 6 people (very small store) who work in the electronics dept know all the details of the DTV switch over, and everyone i've witnessed has done a pretty good job explaining it to customers. Not to mention we have brochures about how to get the converter box coupons in about 6 locations through the department, because hey, more sales for our store. Seems to be working too, the only thing were sold out of more often is Wiis (and were only NOT sold out of those for about negative 45 minutes before UPS comes on tuesdays and customers have laid claim to them).

Since the boxes are only $10 with the coupon, and in our area people get quite a few more channels at much beter quality than with analog, most customers havnt seemed too upset about the switch.

Thrift store Cable.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've found a nice bonus with my new HDTV set hooked up to cable. it picks up digital even though tech support insists that I need a cable box to recieve those.

Re:Thrift store Cable.

[Megane]

Of course that is irrelevant to the article here, because digital cable uses QAM, not ATSC.

Missed sales?

[RamblerRandy]

I don't think anyone brought this up: those stores missed out on sales oppurtunities! They should have been pushing the converters with the TV sets. "Now that you've bought the [analog] TV, you realize that in over a year it won't receive antennae broadcasts? Buy this [overpriced] converter for it." And also a power line conditioner, and gold cables, and dust covers, and cleaners, and warrenty, and so on. The consumer walks out with a $150 TV and $200 of extras!

Talk about missing sales by not stating that ALL analog TV's purchased there "must" have a converter sold with it! Of course with "persuasive" sales pitch wording!