Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the caught-with-your-pants-down dept.

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."

35 of 171 comments (clear)

  1. Just the cost of doing business by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    1. Re:Just the cost of doing business by timmarhy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    2. Re:Just the cost of doing business by cheebie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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%.

    3. Re:Just the cost of doing business by hymie! · · Score: 5, Informative

      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
    4. Re:Just the cost of doing business by c6gunner · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.
    5. Re:Just the cost of doing business by cheebie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:Just the cost of doing business by c6gunner · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.
    7. Re:Just the cost of doing business by cybereal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.
      --
      I read the script, and I think it would help my character's motivation if he was on fire. -Bender
    8. Re:Just the cost of doing business by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  2. What did you expect? by Dishevel · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    1. Re:What did you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:What did you expect? by ddrichardson · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      A thistle is a fat salad for an ass's mouth...
  3. And will any of this $$$... by BUL2294 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...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...

    --
    Windows 3.1x calc: 3.11 - 3.10 = 0.00
    1. Re:And will any of this $$$... by MoonBuggy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:And will any of this $$$... by Megane · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    3. Re:And will any of this $$$... by Megane · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    4. Re:And will any of this $$$... by vtcodger · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    5. Re:And will any of this $$$... by xaxa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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 ;-)
    6. Re:And will any of this $$$... by cdrudge · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.
    7. Re:And will any of this $$$... by CastrTroy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    8. Re:And will any of this $$$... by BUL2294 · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.)
      --
      Windows 3.1x calc: 3.11 - 3.10 = 0.00
    9. Re:And will any of this $$$... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  4. Thrift store TVs by Megane · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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!

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  5. Wal*Mart: looked OK to me by dpbsmith · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --

    "How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!

    1. Re:Wal*Mart: looked OK to me by McGiraf · · Score: 2, Funny

      "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.

  6. Re:And where weren't they doing this? by od05 · · Score: 2, Informative

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

  7. Prolonging the agony by itsdapead · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    --
    In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
  8. the tv's will still work, duh by timmarhy · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
  9. What - *Who* did *What*? by pla · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:What - *Who* did *What*? by stephanruby · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.
    2. Re:What - *Who* did *What*? by Detritus · · Score: 2, Informative
      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.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  10. Re:And where does the money from the fines go? by Vectronic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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...

  11. How about all the "HD" antennas? by digitalaudiorock · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.
  12. They'll make the money back by chaosdot · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  13. kill your television (yet another reason) by drDugan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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...