Slashdot Mirror
US House Kills Proposed Delay For Digital TV Transition
An anonymous reader writes "The Digital TV transition delay bill has failed to pass the United States House of Representatives. By a vote 258 to 168 in favor of changing the date, the bill has failed as two-thirds of the votes are required for it to pass. The delay bill was once perceived as inevitable, [but the House] has now apparently made February 17th the date of transition once again. Now the question remains, will they attempt to pass it again by the deadline?"
What's the big deal, anyway? I'm wondering if I just don't understand something about how this is going down.
In the Houston Chronicle this morning there was an interesting blurb about the delay. Basically, the networks want to delay the switch-over because they don't want it to happen in the middle of the season. They are afraid of losing viewers (and thus advertising dollars) from people who aren't ready for DTV. They'd rather wait until spring/summer when they are airing re-runs.
I live in the city of Pittsburgh, and I loose three channels (including my only ABC and CBS options) as soon as the transition happens. Additionally I purchased one of the converter boxes, and the video lags and is out of synch with the audio.
I would purchase a new box, but everyone I know with a converter box has problems with the conversion dropping lots of frames or being out of sync all the time. I though digital TV was supposed to be more not less channels, and improve the quality. My CBS picture is even nice over analog.
So I guess I would like the date to be later, but more accurately I want to know why this "great conversion experience" that I paid to prepare for is making my tv access suck.
Anyone have suggestions that don't involving spending $70 a month for five tv shows that aren't online or on itunes?
One Subject at a Time Act by Downsize DC would prevent that!
Call your Congresspeople and tell them to support it!
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
Seeing as the deadline is February 17th, any bumps make the chance of having the bill pass much smaller.
"TV is the primary source of news for a large amount of people."
That's sad. I'm a news junky, and I would never think of getting my news from the TV. They don't really have news there. Just infotainment and sensationalism. Seriously. Have you ever looked?
Maybe PBS, but that's about it.
If people are relying on TV for news, it might be good to make them read the newspaper if they haven't gotten a digital tuner yet.
I don't have cable, but I doubt it's much better there based on what I've seen while staying in hotels. But in any event, we aren't talking about people who have cable since the DTV switch over doesn't apply to them.
Hawaii already made the switch to digital TV on January 15th. I haven't heard any newa about their state having any major problems with this transition, so why are they making a big deal about this now?
Basically they are suggesting that the WiMax people are lobbying Congress to delay the switch to DTV.
Their rival, Verizon, cannot deploy Verizon's 4G Long-Term Evolution wireless broadband network until the spectrum is freed up by the elimination of analog TV signals. The longer the delay, the more market penetration for WiMax, and the more trouble for Verizon.
I recently went back to cable since they offer a combined package of tv, phone, and internet. I did not have a digital television when the installer installed the system. I have the cheapest tv package I could get and received only about 15 channels on my analog television sets. I purchased a digital television set and to my surprise I now receive well over 100 channels. So I thought I would go an purchase a converter box so I could receive the same channels on my old analog television set. The converter would not receive any channels. There must be a difference between the tuner in the converter and the tuner in the digital television set. I have looked at the converters offered in the local stores and they are all so cheap as they do not have any controls on the converter. So if one loses or misplaces the remote the television set is worthless until one finds or gets another remote. I recently purchased a so called universal remote and in the instructions there were no codes for either a converter or a surround sound system. So I guess one will have to purchase a new converter every time one misplaces the remote.
Because they don't have the $60?
I know of an apartment building - assisted living for the disabled.
It shares a lot with a rural clinic for CP.
There are no other public facilities within five to ten miles. No shops. Schools. Libraries. Theaters. Restaurants. Parks. Churches.
No trails. No bike paths. No trees. No gardens.
TV opens up a window to a larger world - and - even here - it can be your own world. a rare moment of privacy and choice.
You are not watching pro wrestling or the Superbowl because that is what is playing in the common room and you have nowhere else to go.
It strikes me that government has "bailed out" a lot of folks when technological change becomes urgent.
Hydro power for Appalachia and the Pacific Northwest in the Thirties, the geek tapping into subsidies for the transition to wind and solar power.
So many idiots with so many fallacious arguments.
The real problem is that the converter boxes DO NOT WORK with moderate to weak signals. I'm not a babbling, speculating philosopher like so many in this thread- I'm a BSEE trying to get many people's TVs to work out in suburbia. Indoor rabbit-ear antennas work well in my area with normal analog TV.
Testing 9 different DTV converters I've found that NONE of them will find ANY reception with rabbit-ear antennas.
Outdoor, rooftop antenna with amplifier- over $100 in parts (could go to $500 in some areas) and who knows how much in installation to get a signal which still drops out sometimes.
Here's the kicker (geniuses)- it's winter- there is ice and snow on rooftops. We can't put antennas on the roof in winter. Even if we pay for this whole boondogle.