Slashdot Mirror
Obama Recommends Delay In Digital TV Switch
gregg writes "Six weeks before the nation's television stations are scheduled to convert to digital transmission, the Obama administration is asking Congress to consider a delay. In the most significant sign to date of concern about the impending digital TV transition, the Obama transition team co-chair John Podesta said the government funds to support the change are 'woefully inadequate' and said that the digital switch date, Feb. 17, should be 'reconsidered and extended.'"
In other words, the TV in the Oval Office isn't digital ready, and Obama doesn't want to miss American Idol.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
I personally know one person who only uses their antenna, and they mostly watch DVDs anyway. I know some people are pretty bad off, but if you are that concerned about television you should be able to drop $40 on a converter box and not have the government pay for it.
Given the state of broadcast television, I can't say blacking some people out wouldn't do them a favor. Okay, you need to get a convertor box and you may have to wait to get one, but if we encourage people in the meantime to read a book, go to the library, use the computer there and read the news and so on, that's bad? Really?
I mean, I'm scared that people think that TV is that much of a requirement. Local news is nice and all, sure, but you can make do.
What about all the people that have already bought equipment and are waiting for the stations to go full power with DV? What about all of the stations who have spent tons of money and time gearing up for the switch? In my city (Denver) we have a large new tower built for broadcasting HD, and part of the promise to the residents of the area was that after the switch happened the old towers (and associated problems with them broadcasting) would go away. If you let this linger another year or two they are kind of screwed.
It's going to have to happen sometime, it might as well be now. Yes it sucks that the coupon program is underfunded (the web site you use to get coupons says they are out of money, so no more coupons are to be had), so make it a priority to get coupons out to those in rural areas much less likely to have cable or satellite already.
You just can't decide at the last moment to pull the rug out from under what is a useful technical move forward. There has to be some continuity between what government says will happen and what actually happens, or all dissolves to chaos as government promises are further devalued.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Maybe its just me not being poor or actually liking cable, but is OTA TV really that pervasive these days?
Yeah. I've been using OTA television for years. I'm not going to pay for crap I don't want.
PBS is great and should continue to be able to deliver their service free of charge. Especially for the underprivileged.
Don't get me wrong though, I think the change is a good one, but I think the converter boxes should be cheaper.
What if radio changed and you had to purchase converters for every radio you own or they would be useless?
There will be riots on street, if millions of low income homes are out of TV.
No, seriously.
Why is the government pushing digital. It is not for the clearer image. It is because it takes less airspace, and you can free and resell a lot of the airspace.
However that said. Delaying this isn't really going to help anything. Most Americans either don't watch TV (perhaps playing movies) or have cable or satellite hooked up. The largest group effected is the Sr. Citizens. Who are not much effected by the economy (minus the ones with good 401k) but for the most part the pain going digital will be the same today as it will be next year.
Besides there is no important information that you can get on TV that you cant get via the Radio. You may actually get it faster via the radio.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
There are several shows that are in HD and are not compressed. My dad is a digital cable subscriber but still switches to OTA when the show is available because cable has so many compression artifacts. I use OTA only but I am a hold-out. I just hate paying for programming that contains ads. I mean, isn't that what the ads are for?
"Long time listener, first time caller."
It seems to me that anyone that hasn't received a coupon by now is just going to wait until the next deadline. Wasn't analog supposed to go off the air in 2006? Enough delays already, time to just rip the bandaid off.
My UID is prime... is yours?
The switch was already supposed to happen years ago, but they delayed things back then for the same reason. Should we delay forever and waste a huge amount of spectrum on an ancient broadcasting mechanism?
I think the program is out of money because a lot of people who don't even need coupons are getting them - my guess is that probably half of the people at least do not understand that if they have cable they don't need a different box.
There's still more than a month til the switch, time enough to sort out who really needs help and help them.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
After all, the spectrum that TV uses have already being partly sold. Wouldn't Verizon, et. al. be rather annoyed about this development?
I don't even need my two [coupons], but picked them up anyways.
Uhh, I think they ran out of money because they have allocated it all towards coupons that have been distributed, but haven't been redeemed or expired.
In other words, you (and those like you) are part of the reason the program has run out of funding.
([coupons] assumed based on your post. If you meant [converter boxes], blowing taxpayer money and carbon dioxide for two pieces of junk to sit in your garage is equally foolish.)
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
I know its hard to grasp after the last 8 years, but Constitutionally the US is not an executive dictatorship where the President can just allocate funds to any purpose he chooses on a whim.
I would bet money that in six months, the converter boxes will be cheaper. Why sell your box for $25 when you can tack on an extra $25 and expect people to use a coupon?
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
PBS is great and should continue to be able to deliver their service free of charge
But we can't do it without your help. PBS relies on your donations to keep on the air, and if you aren't donating, that's the same as stealing! If you watch even one second of PBS and don't contribute, you're a thief. A common thief!
Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
I just hate paying for programming that contains ads. I mean, isn't that what the ads are for?
Yes, the ads are paying for the programming. But not for the access. That's what your cable bill is for -- to pay for the wiring and access to the programming.
Or to put it another way, are you surprised that have to pay a bill to your ISP -and- you see ads on cnn.com?
I really don't know why people find the cable-TV concept so confusing.
[and yes, I realize cable is a bit more complicated, in that there are arrangements where cable kicks up some money to a channel for carrying the channel, but that isn't enough to pay for most programming. The point still stands.]
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
I hope there will be cheap radios that can pickup digital TV sound like there is now for analog.
During the recent long power outage in New Hampshire, we found it very useful to have a little radio that picked up TV sound. The coverage of the emergency seemed to be better on TV than radio.
Radios like that will soon be less useful.
I would recommend that everybody should get their coupon, even if they have cable, if for no other reason than emergency preparedness. Sometimes you may need to catch a broadcast while the cable feeding to your living room is on the fritz.
The cost of the coupon program is (a) a small fraction of the profit made by auctioning off the frequencies, and (b) a small fraction of the money this is costing consumers who are being forced into upgrading.
I can't speak for everywhere obviously, but here in Los Angeles pulling the plug on the analog transmissions is a big big deal. Not just because of Southern California's population but because of it's LATINO population.
I work in this industry for a Low Power Analog TV station (one that broadcasts on 4 different stations locally and a bunch more across the country). And the transition represents about 80% of my workload lately (I do broadcast engineering and IT).
But back on point, a LOT and I mean like hundreds of thousands of Latino families in the area rely on OTA transmissions. When you pull their plug, you might say "great, now they can go outside, read a book, etc" but in reality they're not tuned in. So that means advertising revenue dries up for the station (as it has for ours and almost every other that caters to the Latino community as well as mainstream tv programming). That means more layoffs and so on down the line.
Speaking for my company and other smaller players this delay is a good thing. Eventually the analog stations will go away and that's fine and eventually the low power guys like myself will have a concrete deadline too, and that's fine as well. Just remember though, millions have cable, direcTV, Dish, etc but there are still MORE than a few out there that really rely on plain vanilla over the air TV broadcast.
As for "the government paying for it," it's a small fraction of what they sold the reclaimed rf spectrum for.
Why is it people believe just because somebody doesn't receive weather information over the TV that their lives are at risk and that the government is going to be sued. If anybody is truly serious about staying on top of weather information they would have a weather radio and listen to the National Weather Service at critical times operated by NOAA. There are even radios that can be bought cheaply that automatically turn on whenever severe weather is going on in your county or area.
In my experience of NOAA weather radios they are far more reliable because with all weather radios I've seen so far operate off of batteries which will allow the radio to continue to operate with or without power to the home compared to that of TVs where well: no power, no TV, no weather information.
I have read a few articles that give the impression that once analog broadcasts are turned off then the digital broadcasts will be allowed to boost their power output, but by how much I have no idea. Hopefully this is true because some stations broadcasting in the same county as on the receiving end is just terribly difficult to pickup. The worst so far is WTVF (CBS) here in Nashville, Tennessee that I have noticed.
This space is not for rent.
Another one here. After finding cable signals are worse than OTA, I downgraded cable package (I get discounted rate for bundling with Internet service any way). OTA digital has many interesting channels not on cable.
I second that. OTA digital is amazingly good picture quality.
Just pick up a cheap amplified loop antenna. You don't need anything fancy.
I find being offended by me offensive.
If it takes a Porsche to motivate you through med school, then I don't want you as a doctor anyway. Much smarter people work for a lot less in non-medical fields.
Just like the insurance-companies do now? What's the difference?
-rozzin.
One of my best friends depends on their rabbit ears, and they're poor enough that the cost of a converter box is kind of a big deal. And before some asshat who knows nothing of poverty opens their yap about how he shouldn't be watching TV, he busts his ass then comes home and would like to relax in the evening, okay? He and plenty of other people are in this position, and they never wanted to have to drop $40 just so the government could raise $20bil.
The enemies of Democracy are
From my POV here in Rhode Island, it looks like most 'poor' people have satellite, the middle class have cable and fios. I attribute this to the sat. companies not doing a credit check, which the cable companies seem to do.
The upper-middle class are the only folks I see with 'regular' TVs anymore. They listen to NPR and tune in to PBS or watch the news, but that's pretty much it.
And the rich folks... I wouldn't know. They never invite me over. :-) I would assume they keep high-end HDTV setups, but rarely watch.
I do think that there is an inversely proportional relationship to how much TV you watch and how much money you make though. I don't really ever spot my well-to-do friends watching TV. I haven't figured out if it's because
more disposable income -> better things to do than TV
or
educated and motivated -> more disposable income
The funny thing was, I went over to my parents a few days ago, and they think they're all set because they have cable, which is true in the TV room; but then they flipped on their little black-and-white 4" TV in the kitchen for the news. I pointed out that they'll have to drop about two hundred bucks to replace -that-, to which my dad replied, "Screw it, I'll throw it away."
Come to think of it, I haven't seen -one- actual, installed DTV converter, and I was in a -lot- of houses in the last month. I also don't know anyone who consumes OTA digital TV.
I'll bet there are a -ton- of elderly folks in those huge apartment towers I see all over town that have bunny ears though... They're going to be pissed, and they vote.
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
Dump the insurance and just pay cash. It's cheaper in the long-run, and takes advantage of the fact that nearly-all people don't get a serious illness until after age 60.
Small comfort to those who suffer a stroke or heart attack or cancer at younger ages.
It's silly to waste thousands on insurance when you're still young and healthy & more likely to get hit with an asteroid than fall victim to a mortal illness. (Okay I exaggerated a bit, but you get my point.)
You'd think with odds like that a competitive free market insurance industry would be falling over themselves to insure young healthy people for low annual premiums... care to speculate on the fact that they don't?
My theory is that you are simply mistaken.
"Breaking" everyone's analog TV is going to be controversial enough. But to time it to happen right after a new president is inaugurated? Forget that this changeover has been in the works forever, who is Joe Blow going to blame? I don't blame the Obama administration for wanting to postpone it a bit.
I think this is point is not being emphasized enough. What digital you can get OTA even today is not representative of what you will get after Feb 17. Many stations are not running their digital at full power and others have translators that are not switching until the transition. In my area, geography (i.e. foothills) makes translators essential even for analog, so stations who haven't switched their translators are really hard to get.
If it takes a Porsche to motivate you through med school, then I don't want you as a doctor anyway. Much smarter people work for a lot less in non-medical fields.
It's got nothing to do with wanting a Porsche and I'm rather disappointed that the herd gave you a +5 for that remark. Do you have any idea of the amount of student loan debt that the typical med student has by the time they finish with medical school? Do you have any idea how much malpractice insurance costs?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
2 things
first $6000 for an operation? hah! not in the usa. I had a friend pay $2500 for a 10-minute cat scan that just happened to not be covered by his insurance. Operations are *always* in the tens of thousands of dollars, even the simple ones.
second, you are talking about two different segments of american society. People who buy $30,000 suvs tend to also have health insurance. We're talking about the lower middle class who buy reasonable mid-size cars and for whom paying $10,000+ per year in just insurance is tough. (that's the norm, including employer contribution) And as the other poster mentions, this is really bankruptcy protection in case that operation is a little more complicated than expected.
Here in Finland the switch was made in Sep. 2007 for terrestrial broadcasting and cable television Feb. 2008. The rest of the EU member states are expected to stop analogue television transmissions by 2012. Wasn't such a big deal... many people actually are still refusing to buy the convertor box after being able to notice a dramatic improvement in their quality of life.
My mother still has broadcast TV. No cable. She's not the only one I know. There are a lot of lower income people that can't afford the high monthly prices of subscription TV. Don't look at just your own peer group to decide whether or not something is ubiquitous.
The snag though is that the Digital TV signal isn't that great where she is, and she's going to lose one of her favorite channels that comes in quite well over analog.
Even better. There should be a second wave of more capable converter boxes that don't have the stupid limitations that were imposed on the current ones such as no digital audio outputs, no HD component outs, etc.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.