Senate Passes Another Bill To Delay Digital TV Transition

An anonymous reader tips news that the US Senate has passed another bill to delay the transition to digital TV. This is the second such bill to pass the Senate; the first was narrowly defeated in the House. The new version has an important difference — it would allow the transition to take place gradually over the four-month period between the original transition date (February 17th) and the extended date (June 12th). TV stations around the country could choose when they wanted to make the change, allowing those who have already begun plans to stop analog transmission to continue their shut-down operations.

Comments

How much MORE is this costing us?

[DreamsAreOkToo]

I'm someone who doesn't watch much TV. I'm sure other people could go a few days (or however long it takes them to find out what's wrong with their television set) without TV. Now, how much MORE is this bill costing me in taxpayer dollars? And you justify this HOW?

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because some people took no action to get a DTV tuner, and now the government feels really bad about it. Naturally, their response is to delay everything. Those people are never going to be ready.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[SydShamino]

Nothing besides the pay for the senators that should be doing something else.

It's all paid for out of the sale price of the freed spectrum. And that price isn't changing.

---

What bothers me a lot more about all of this is that, barely mentioned as an aside during transition conversation, is that many channels will be moving frequencies of their digital stations during the transition.

Every single local station in Austin has a digital broadcast already. I receive them all wonderfully with my little antenna plugged into my Dish Network DVR, so I can tune three channels at once (two satellite, one OTA).

However - I only have a UHF antenna. If the digital broadcasts move back to their old, analog slots on transition day, then
1) All my presets break.
2) I might lose any stations that move back into VHF.

That means folks like me, who are already "prepared" for the transition, might have problems too. Those are all problems I can solve (only Fox is a VHF station in Austin on analog, and I can live without). But what about all the people with converter boxes that needed help getting them set up? Are we all going to have to make rounds with our friends & families to rescan channels to find the new locations?

This really just isn't clear at all. I wish they would work this out by shifting markets one at a time, perhaps starting on the east coast and working west, so it's not the whole country having problems all at once. And that's why I think a slower transition makes more sense.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, they've already sold off the old frequency used by the analog stations to Verizon. They aren't moving the digital stations.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[Farmer Pete]

Here is a link to the final resting places of channels. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1082A2.pdf

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup. But IT WILL WORK.

We switched to digital TV long ago in Finland (Honestly, I can't understand how you guys in the promised land of TV can be so far behind in this matter. What the hell is taking you so long?). It was delayed once due to not enough people having bought tuners. Then, they noticed that after the delay a lot of people still hadn't bought but didn't delay it more. And guess what? Within the last few weeks before the old broadcasts ending, the rest of the people bought them.

Why would they have bought the tuners earlier? The longer you wait, the cheaper the technology gets and the better tuner you can buy. We bought our digibox well before we would have needed to but if we had bought one on last possible occasion, there would have been better models on the market for the same price...

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[LurkerXXX]

Some people took action, but didn't get one.

I was in the store in the early days of the coupon thing looking for digital tuners to compare. Best Buy and the other stores were totally out of them. If I gotten my coupons back then I might not have been able to get one because the coupons expire in 30 days.

Right now a lot of people have applied for coupons, but they are out. So although those folks took action and applied, they won't be getting one until the govt decides to print out another batch.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[mrsquid0]

>We switched to digital TV long ago in Finland (Honestly, I can't
>understand how you guys in the promised land of TV can be so
>far behind in this matter.

My experience, from living in various countries, is that the US is generally a bit behind the curve when it comes to consumer electronics technology, such as tv. We do tend to have more interesting things to watch on our tvs though.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[camperslo]

Uh, they've already sold off the old frequency used by the analog stations to Verizon. They aren't moving the digital stations.

Because of the analog stations still in operation and the interference issues from so many (digital AND analog) stations being on at once, some of the digital transmitters operating now are on temporary channels and WILL move again at transition time. That certainly applies to the stations using channels above 51.

Although your digital receiver probably displays a number with a decimal after it as the channel, much of the time that number is the old analog channel not the channel actually being used for the digital transmission.

With stations shifting around and a few new ones appearing, viewers will need to use the scan-channel or add channel functions to get the new/moved signals. So even those that think they're already set up have a little work left to do to see everything that their equipment can get.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[Kral_Blbec]

No to mention a population and land size about a zillion times larger. That complicates public service/standards programs.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[gluefish]

This is an example of the idea that you should be kind to the puppy by only chopping an inch of his tail at a time.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[nabsltd]

I might lose any stations that move back into VHF.

This is unlikely.

Very few stations are choosing to move their digital signal to any of the VHF-Low (2-6) channels, and only a very few UHF antennas won't get good enough reception on VHF-Hi (7-13).

Austin has only Fox choosing a VHF-Hi channel (7) as their final digital frequency. See here for more information on the final channel assignments and when and how they expect to make the change.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[slugstone]

>We switched to digital TV long ago in Finland (Honestly, I can't
>understand how you guys in the promised land of TV can be so
>far behind in this matter.

My experience, from living in various countries, is that the US is generally a bit behind the curve when it comes to consumer electronics technology, such as tv. We do tend to have more interesting things to watch on our tvs though.

Please tell. Quote your source.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[Anonymous Coward]

The program ran out of money. What is with this slashdot-group-think that somehow it is the fault of the laziness of some people?

If everyone had been more proactive, nothing would be different. We would still not have enough money for everyone to get a tuner.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[Neoprofin]

"My experience, living in various countries"

I know what you were going for, "American TV sucks", but if you're not going to do it right leave the comment for someone else to make.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[Aranykai]

So, heres my caveat. Why is everyone entitled to a coupon? Is there some law that you shouldn't have to upgrade your technology unless the government subsidizes the cost?

Buy the damn box, or go without tv. Its not that complicated. Hell, Ill bet a good portion of the converters sold belong to people who have cable/satellite and don't even need them.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[jedidiah]

There is this little bit of law we have about the government
not being able to take things away from you. Now since it was
the government that forced everyone's old devices to become
useless, they have a responsibility to help with the aftermath.

Although if this whole thing weren't one big moneygrab by
electronics companies, the transition might have occured
without the need for excessively priced replacement hardware.

Nevermind the $50 converter box. You should be able to get
a small ATSC TV for that much. Digital has been conflated
with HDTV and content encryption.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[LurkerXXX]

"Why is everyone entitled to a coupon?"

Because the government sold a public resource, the airwaves, to private companies. The funds from that sale go to provide the money for the coupons.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[kdemetter]

True . Where i live , it's comparable : we have 2 competing firms selling digital tv , and now they are in the heat of promotion , basically giving away the tuners , and providing months of free extra channels ( offcourse , the do this so you pay for them afterwards ) .

If we had just bought it at the start, we would have had to pay for the tuner, without the free months.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[cjb658]

It's all paid for out of the sale price of the freed spectrum. And that price isn't changing.

That was the original agreement, but Obama's new "stimulus" bill will ensure that everyone will be paying for it.

Or maybe just our children, if they decide to pay for it "without raising taxes."

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[aliquis]

Atleast you had HD way before us over here in Europe.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[Luscious868]

Or people could just get off of their lazy asses and go buy one WITHOUT a coupon. We're talking about $40 bucks. If you ask the me this entire program is one giant boondoggle. The government should only be subsidizing these things for poor people who actually need it and can't afford it on their own. Having a website where anybody can sign up for a coupon is beyond ridiculous. I realize we're talking about peanuts when it's compared to the overall budget, but we're still talking about millions of dollars that could be spent on feeding the hungry and housing the homeless. Lord knows we need it in this economy. How Americans went from a "can do" people to a bunch of lazy whiners who can't do anything without governments help is beyond me. It's $40 bucks. Skip fast food for two or three weeks during lunch and have some soup instead and there's your $40 bucks. You'll be healthier and you can get your box without a coupon from the government. Two birds with one stone.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[travbrad]

Yep, my grandparents live in a very rural area at the bottom of a big hill, and they can't get their DTV tuner to work at all. The DTV switch for them will be going from "TV" to "no TV".

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[LurkerXXX]

Or maybe those 'lazy' people just aren't ignorant as you appear to be about the program.

As I already replied to other posters, the government sold a public resource, the airwaves, to a handful of private companies. Funds from that sale went to provide the coupons, so it's not a boondoggle of any size. It's a valid way of making up for loss of the use of those public airwaves.

American's are still "can do". Some are just more ignorant about how things work than others.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[Detritus]

The government didn't take anything away from you. It has no obligation to compensate anyone for hardware that has become obsolete or useless due to new laws and regulations. This isn't the first time that this sort of thing has happened.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[Detritus]

Digital TV was invented in the USA. It's the implementation that has taken forever.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[CastrTroy]

If you can afford the TV and the electricity to run the TV, I doubt you would have much a of problem scraping together $40 for the tuner. If you are that strapped for cash that you can't get $40 together, maybe you should go a little while without TV, You've had a couple years to prepare, Save a couple dollars a month in a jar to pay for it.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[antdude]

I prefer XLS file and possible terminate date list.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[SkyDude]

(Honestly, I can't understand how you guys in the promised land of TV can be so far behind in this matter. What the hell is taking you so long?)

Let's see - Finland's population = 5,244,749 (July 2008 est.)USA = 303,824,640 (July 2008 est.). Estimates courtesy of the CIA Factbook.

If my home state of Massachusetts mandated such a switch, with a population only slightly less than Finland's, I think it would have happened, ya think?

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[Anonymous Coward]

Content encryption? On ATSC? Really? ATSC is FTA.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[MichaelSmith]

No to mention a population and land size about a zillion times larger. That complicates public service/standards programs.

I don't think scale is the issue. Resources to push change scale with population as well. Political power in the US is divided between three levels of Government over 50 odd states and lots (I have no idea) of local government areas. I can see that it would be hard to get all those people to agree on anything.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[2t]

Yes it works, but what benefits did we truly get from switching so early?

(I'm really asking for your opinion of what's better, not trying to flame.)

Terrestial feed is so crowded that the quality of signal is barely watchable on a 26" flat screen.
( Did you see Tekniikan Maailma's review this summer?)

Cable is a bit better. Practically the only difference is electrical TV-Guide, news are still brought by Text-TV and I can't come up with anything else.

Well, u can remove subtitles and change the audio language, though the language part was possible in analog tv. I don't use either feature, though some of course might.

Now we have a nation full of Digital tuners that are not capable of HD feed... ...and I really think switching to HD is going to take forever because of this.

No politician is going to commit the political suicide of "Remember how we forced you to switch to Digital TV just a couple years ago? Well, we are going to do it again."

Our switch was rushed and in retrospect IMHO for all the wrong reasons. The technological advances that were part of the initial reasons for the switch never came to life and the switch date was kept because it had been set without considering if it really was the right time.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[palegray.net]

Somebody please mod parent up. Thank you for pointing out the fact that just a tiny bit of personal responsibility would make this entire mess unnecessary. Seriously, anyone who can afford a TV can afford a converter box.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[Luscious868]

It's money that could be better spent elsewhere and it is a boondoggle.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[CrimsonAvenger]

over 50 odd states

While I agree that most of our States are odd, it's not quite fair to call them all odd.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Honestly, I can't understand how you guys in the promised land of TV can be so far behind in this matter. What the hell is taking you so long?

Mostly, it's because digital doesn't really do much for the average consumer.

Who really cares that it's lower bandwidth, since we watch cable anyway? Even if we watched over the air TV, how does the station using less bandwidth help the viewer?

Yah, it doesn't do snow, but it has its own annoying responses to partial loss of signal.

So, basically, it's something that the vast American public really doesn't give a rat's hind leg about. Which is why it's easy for a politician to make hay out of delaying the issue, or forcing the issue, whichever is fashionable in any given week.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[CrimsonAvenger]

It has no obligation to compensate anyone for hardware that has become obsolete or useless due to new laws and regulations.

Actually, it generally is so obligated in the USA. Which is why most such laws have "grandfather clauses" which allow the use of the old hardware, even if it no longer meets the requirements of the law.

In this case, however, the old hardware becomes immediately useless, since the government has required TV stations to no longer broadcast analog signals. So it's the government's problem to deal with it.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[cayenne8]

"My experience, from living in various countries, is that the US is generally a bit behind the curve when it comes to consumer electronics technology, such as tv. We do tend to have more interesting things to watch on our tvs though."

I dunno about that last part.

With 'reality' shows, American Idol, Dancing with a star or whatever else like it, dominating our tv these days. I seriously doubt we have tv programming that much better than the rest of the world now.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[Jardine]

With stations shifting around and a few new ones appearing, viewers will need to use the scan-channel or add channel functions to get the new/moved signals. So even those that think they're already set up have a little work left to do to see everything that their equipment can get.

Oh noes! That's terrible. Almost as if the power had gone off for long enough for their TV to lose its memory. I hope no one gets muscle strain from hitting those buttons on the remote.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[Dan541]

until a few months ago they still had analogue Mobile (Cell) Phones as well. America seems to fall behind in adapting technology.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[Dan541]

Because American Idol is considered good in America.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[Detritus]

In 1963, the FCC made almost all land mobile (two-way FM radio) radio equipment obsolete when they mandated new channel spacing and FM deviation standards to make more efficient use of the radio spectrum. Users had to buy new radios that complied with the new standards, at their own expense.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[Firethorn]

If it's like my area; those stations that are transmitting both analog and digital channels are transmitting the digital ones at about a tenth less strength. I suggest they(or you) visit antennaweb or TV Fool to find out the relative transmitting powers for their area.

Once they shut off the analog transmitters they're generally going to step up the power on their digital stations.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[camperslo]

Who really cares that it's lower bandwidth, since we watch cable anyway? Even if we watched over the air TV, how does the station using less bandwidth help the viewer?

1) Lower bandwidth means better quality and/or more content per 6 MHz tv channel. Some stations can now carry more than one network. P.B.S. stations can do things like have kids programs, regular adult informative shows, foreign language programming, and some reruns all going at once.

2) Giving up some of the spectrum (channels 52-69) makes 102 MHz available for other uses.
a) more frequencies for emergency services etc (claimed needed after 9/11)
b) other commercial/public use. Spectrum was auctioned off. Plenty of lobbying there I'm sure.
Will it bring us some wonderful fast (cheap? free???) wireless services? Time will tell.

cable/satellite services are trying to do so much that they're pushing per-program data rates way down. There don't seem to be any regulations limiting how bad it can get.
Broadcast DTV is generally better video quality.

Commercial broadcast tv is pretty annoying. One would think that tv broadcasters would have noticed all the ads on radio, and all of the people that are listening to iPods instead.
18 minutes or so of ads in an hour tv show? It used to be more like 11 or 12.
Of course we were told deregulation was good, and marketplace forces would serve the public interest. Worked great for the banks, didn't it?

The economy isn't the only reason many haven't bought big new televisions for the transition.
Most of what's on tv isn't worth expensive hardware. Thank (insert deity of choice) for PBS.
The industry almost deserves to die.
The public needs diversity in news sources. Democracy requires knowledge and the free flow of information to function. Infrastructure for tv that works well technically is great. Now how about some reforms that'll lead to better programming with fewer ads? That's the kind of help most viewers want.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[Firethorn]

And to think that most of my stations are in the VHF spectrum. Due to the flat land and low population density; going VHF gets you more viewers. People just buy roof mount antennas. My antenna, for example, is longer than I am tall.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[commodore64_love]

At least we don't have the shitty crap known as "DAB" Radio which sounds like internet radio through phoneline dialup.

We may be a little behind the curve, but the advantage is we usually avoid the mistakes other countries have made. Japan got HDTV first, but now they're abandoning it since it was analog and failed. Certain EU states had DTV first, but not HD. And I already mentioned the crap-sounding monoaural(!) DAB which is inferior to HD Radio (can do 5-channel surround). Being slow and cautious is often smarter than rushing-into a new technology that is not yet ready & later viewed as a mistake.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[commodore64_love]

In 1963 the FCC also had separate bathrooms for "whites" and "coloreds". Just because our ancestors were stupid doesn't mean we have to make the same shit-head mistakes. If the government's action result in ~100 billion dollars worth of TVs, VCRs, and DVRs receiving nothing but static, then the government should either:

(a) provide some assistance with $40 coupons -or-

(b) be prepared to face a Constitutional Convention called by the angry People, that will dissolve the existing government, and replace it with a "more perfect union Mark 3". The central government's job is to SERVE the people not to bend them over & screw them up the anus.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[commodore64_love]

The money spent on these coupons is only 1/10th of one percent of the 1500 billion spent bailing-out banks & other corporations. If you're going to whine, instead of whining about a few dollars spent to help poor & middle class citizens (i.e. the laborers) upgrade, whine about the 1500 billion given to RICH son of bichs like Donny Trump and Billy Gates and the otherfucktards who are STEALING taxpayer dollars (legalized theft is still theft) in order to save themselves from bankruptcy.

The 1,500,000,000 given away to rich people is the REAL boondoggle.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[commodore64_love]

You're whining about nothing. The coupon program represents less than 1/10th of one percent the 1500 billion spent to bailout banks & other rich fat asses. I see nothing wrong with spending some of the government's spare charge to help the workers for a change. BTW, even if you ran your television 8 hours a day for an entire year, it only amounts to ~15 dollars. Electrical cost is nowhere near as expensive as buying one of the $50 or $60 boxes.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[WillyDavidK]

And of course we have a lot more bitchy sue-happy citizens

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[palegray.net]

The coupon program represents less than 1/10th of one percent the 1500 billion spent to bailout banks & other rich fat asses. I see nothing wrong with spending some of the government's spare charge (sic) to help the workers for a change.

I don't care if it represents a nickel. I'm completely opposed to bailing out Wall Street in the first place, and that "spare change" you regard so flippantly happens to be a portion of our tax dollars.

I wasn't referring to the cost of the electricity to run the TV; I was referring to the cost of the TV itself. People seem to be able to find hundreds of dollars to buy nice television sets, only to turn around and scream bloody murder over the prospect of having to buy a cheap converter box. It's ridiculous, and so are your views on the matter.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[commodore64_love]

Even in places of high-density VHF is popular. Here's what we have in the Baltimore-Harrisburg-Philadelphia region:

6
7
8
10
11
12
13

If you live in this area, you NEED to have a VHF-capable antenna. Next-to-no UHF antennas can receive 6 to 13 well-enough to produce a clear digital picture.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[Dan541]

What is "DAB" exactly?

At least we have good phone service.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[Wildclaw]

Sigh, why is it that some us citizens love to bring up the flawed "appeal to size" argument in these kind of discussions.

Appealing to size only works when the difficulty of the task at hand has nonlinear scaling. And neither vote counting, nor distributing digital reciever equipment are problems that scale nonlinearly.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[SeaFox]

What is "DAB" exactly?

I would assume from the acromyn and context it means "Digital Audio Broadcasting" and Wikipedia says I'm right.

At least we have good phone service.

The fact analog service was still working until recently doesn't mean we didn't have digital cellular service. :rolleyes: Analog service had remained active, but it's been years since a person has been able to get a wireless provider to activate an analog phone. Only people who had older phones still running with it were able to continue using it. Digital service began appearing in 1995 and all providers have been using it for some time now.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[YesIAmAScript]

Finland spent almost 7 years switching over, and you didn't switch off analog until 18 months ago. That isn't "long ago".

The US is on a similar schedule, we've spent about 6 years switching over, and even if we delay it another 6 months, it still will be on about the same schedule as Finland.

This all despite switching the US being a far larger project due to the much higher number of stations to switch and converter boxes to supply.

I congratulate you on switching your system. I congratulate you on having a standard for digital TV that is widely used and closely related to your satellite systems (DVB).

But what justification do you have for getting on your high horse?

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Who really cares that it's lower bandwidth, since we watch cable anyway? Even if we watched over the air TV, how does the station using less bandwidth help the viewer?

1) Lower bandwidth means better quality and/or more content per 6 MHz tv channel. Some stations can now carry more than one network. P.B.S. stations can do things like have kids programs, regular adult informative shows, foreign language programming, and some reruns all going at once.

The average viewer doesn't get any meaningful benefit from this. Most of them have their own list of shows they watch, and adding more channels full of shows they're not interested in is meaningless.

2) Giving up some of the spectrum (channels 52-69) makes 102 MHz available for other uses.
a) more frequencies for emergency services etc (claimed needed after 9/11)
b) other commercial/public use. Spectrum was auctioned off. Plenty of lobbying there I'm sure. Will it bring us some wonderful fast (cheap? free???) wireless services? Time will tell.

Wonderful news, indeed. Of course, the average viewer (you DID notice I was talking about the viewers, NOT the government, right?) doesn't really care about more frequencies for emergency services (claimed needed, but not proved), or which lobbyist will make out like a bandit.

Your arguments are cogent, thoughtful, and utterly irrelevant to the question of "benefit for the average viewer".

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[commodore64_love]

>>>happens to be a portion of our tax dollars.

False. TV channels 52 to 69 were sold-off for around 1 billion dollars, and that is the money being used to upgrade poor & middle ncome televisions NOT taxpayer dollars. You would known this is you got off you Libertarian wacky tobaccy and did some actual RESEARCH. (Yeah I now - you thought after you graduated, you wouldn't need to do that anymore. Wrong!)

If my TV, VCR, and DVR stops working on February 17 and I don't receive my 80 dollars assistance to upgrade, thus turning six hundred dollars of equipment into worthless junk that display/record white statics, a couple of the politicians are going to get Fired next election even if it means running for Congress myself.

 

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[commodore64_love]

P.S.

Perhaps I ought to drive over to your house and take a hammer to YOUR television, since you think it's okay for the People to live without one. We'll see how YOU like living without the video screen HYou sdelf-cneterrd son ofr a wbhitocre. Gio asyuxcjk sdudjsc. Grrr.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[Anonymous Coward]

No! Nothing was sold, nor is it a resource!

Networks can have their licenses revoked if they do not provide "public interest, convenience, and necessity." (Radio Act of 1927)

The FCC allows companies who have the resources and the money to publicly broadcast to do so as long as it is under those terms.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[Exawatt]

If the government's action result in ~100 billion dollars worth of TVs, VCRs, and DVRs

I think it's quite obvious that you don't really know what's being changed. VCRs? DVRs? What the hell do they have to do with anything? They'll work fine. They have nothing to do with this switch. Whatsoever. A VCR plugged into an analog TV will still play VHS tapes. And I seriously doubt anyone with a Digital Video Recorder is going to be affected by the switch. VCRs and DVRs aren't going to "receive nothing but static."

And where's this "$100 billion" figure come from?

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[RocketRabbit]

DAB can be OK if they use the higher bitrates and excellent encoding pipelines. But the stations like to slice up their bandwidth and broadcast a ton of crappy quality streams, much like a certain large "HD" capable provider does. I'm looking your way, Comcast!

We have a similarly shitty thing here, called "HD Radio" which has the side effect of screwing with the analog signals. One company has a lock on the whole technology - you use their chip, or none at all. Some standard, no?

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[palegray.net]

You're more than welcome to attempt to destroy my private property, as long as you're willing to accept certain consequences involving the discharge of a firearm.

I do agree with your sig, though.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[palegray.net]

TV channels 52 to 69 were sold-off for around 1 billion dollars, and that is the money being used to upgrade poor & middle ncome (sic) televisions NOT taxpayer dollars.

If you bothered to do your research, you'd know that the funds from the sale of the rights to that broadcast spectrum don't cover the handouts for equipment upgrades. Please run for Congress so I can persuade as many people as possible to mock you mercilessly.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[RocketRabbit]

If you couldn't get off your butt and solve the problem yet, I doubt the incumbent has much to worry about.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[MBGMorden]

I was in the store in the early days of the coupon thing looking for digital tuners to compare. Best Buy and the other stores were totally out of them. If I gotten my coupons back then I might not have been able to get one because the coupons expire in 30 days.

The coupons were good for online purchases too. When you got one it even included a list of participating online and phone vendors. You could compare all you wanted, with a much greater selection and virtually guaranteed stock, and order within the same day. Local availability in no way would affect one's ability to use their coupon. Heck DISH Network had their version of the unit that was completely covered by the coupon and the buyer needed only to chip in $8 shipping, which was far cheaper than most of the ones in stores.

And though it's anecdotal, I find it hard to believe all the places that were "totally out" of digital tuner boxes. For the last year and a half to two years I've seen them stacked up by the dozens in virtually every store that sold anything electronic.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[Anonymous Coward]

it's silly left wing propaganda, of course. They think that the government owes them a piece of the pie...

it's sad really.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[aesiamun]

1500 billion to Bill Gates? Wow are you misinformed.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[aesiamun]

Please stop typing in bold on ALL of your posts.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[atraintocry]

Right. This isn't out of obligation (though that would be nice), this is about the unreal hold that TV has on us as a planet. I'm not saying that to sound enlightened, my TV is on as I'm typing this. The converter box program is so that people don't start rioting :)

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[atraintocry]

In 1963 the FCC also had separate bathrooms for "whites" and "coloreds".

...the fuck?

Even if there was some sort of injustice in the switch, do you think it would have even a thousandth of the significance of legalized segregation in this country? A millionth, even? Or any amount that would make it worth bringing up in this discussion?

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[commodore64_love]

DAB's main problem is that it uses MP2-encoding, which needs at least 192 kbit/s to produce FM-quality sound, so it's very inefficient. BBC rather stupidly squeezes it to 128 kbit/s or 96 kbit/s, which is barely better than AM quality. People are better off sticking with FM if they want high fidelity sound, and it's one reason DAB has sold poorly with consumers.

HD Radio is proprietary, but so too was FM when it was originally created (RCA owned). Also VHS is proprietary and ditto CD, but we made-out okay with them despite that "flaw". As for the analog interference, I've never heard that problem but even if it does exist, analog will be phased out in 2020* or 2030 so in the long-term it won't matter.

*
* the year UK has announced FM will end;
* the U.S. is likely to have a similar time table

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[commodore64_love]

>>>I think it's quite obvious that you don't really know what's being changed.

No YOU are the one who does not understand. Keep reading.

>>>VCRs? DVRs? What the hell do they have to do with anything? They'll work fine.

All VCRs and most DVRs sold pre-2009 do Not come with digital tuners. Therefore they won't record anything off-the-air but white static, without a gov't-assisted upgrade (i.e. converter box). That's why I have one box dedicated exclusively to VCR or DVR usage, because I want to keep recording stuff off television.

>>>I seriously doubt anyone with a Digital Video Recorder is going to be affected by the switch.

You can emphasize "digital" all you want you, but the fact remains: I have a DVR called a Panasonic ReplayTV and it only records analog, not digital signals. It records NTSC, not ATSC. Many many other over-the-air viewers are in the exact-same situation with VCRs/DVRs about to go obsolete on February 18.

That's why Dish Network's DTVpal has been so successful. It upgrades VCRs and DVRs.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[commodore64_love]

If you bothered to read the WHOLE sentence, you'd see my point was: We shouldn't repeat the mistakes of the past. Just because the government allowed certain activities in the 1950s and 60s (changing FM/TV frequencies without providing coupons to assist with upgrades), does not mean the government should repeat those activities in the 2000s.

BTW I'm black so I'm well-aware of the problems of the past. I'm glad today's government is more-inclined to HELP people, rather than give them the finger and say "tough". Especially since it's my people who are the ones most likely to get screwed by this Analog shutdown and least-able to afford a $60-70 box.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[commodore64_love]

>>>And where's this "$100 billion" figure come from?

I quoted it from memory. A quick calculation shows that number is a little off, but close to accurate. If you figure the average home has 2 TVs that will stop working after 2/17, that's about $200 times 2 == $400 per home that will only "see" white noise after the cutoff.

20 million homes watch over-the-air (according to Nielsen), so that yields 800 billion dollars of equipment that will be turned to junk by the Congress's decision to end analog.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[commodore64_love]

Non-relevant. Even if the persons receiving the bailout are named "Joe Schmoe", since these persons are WEALTHY why should they be receiving handouts, but the over-the-air citizens receive nothing to help them upgrade their sets??? It's not logical to give assistance to the rich, but nothing for the workers.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[commodore64_love]

I love your sentence, but please allow me to make some modifications:

>>> [Dear Congressman], you're more than welcome to attempt to destroy my private property (television), as long as you're willing to accept certain consequences involving the discharge of a firearm.

Get it?

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[commodore64_love]

>>>the funds from the sale of the rights to that broadcast spectrum don't cover the handouts for equipment upgrades.

False.

The sale netted several billion dollars. The handouts/coupons are only a few million dollars. Congress netted FAR more money from the sale of channels 52-69 then they spent on coupons.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[commodore64_love]

Well, the coupon program started January 5, 2008 so they had a whole YEAR to apply... why'd they wait until now??? So I agree with other slashdotters that these persons are guilty of severe procrastination (aka laziness).

On the other hand I think Congress should give the coupon program more money. Then they wouldn't need to extend the date, because everyone who needs a coupon between now and March 1st would get one.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[commodore64_love]

>>>Please.

And thank you, but no.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[Anonymous Coward]

The average viewer doesn't get any meaningful benefit from this. Most of them have their own list of shows they watch, and adding more channels full of shows they're not interested in is meaningless.

You're working really hard to lose this argument. People will love the new digital TV once it's working everyone will be talking about how cool it is. Mark my words.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[Anonymous Coward]

Networks can have their licenses revoked if they do not provide "public interest, convenience, and necessity." (Radio Act of 1927)

Baaahahaha! I've never seen a license revoke for those reasons.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, in Sweden we have decided to use DAB+ which uses AAC Plus as its format rather than regular AAC. The infrastructure is already in place and has been for several, several years. We have almost 90 percent "latent" coverage in terms of transmitters and all that, but political decisions have delayed the national rollout of DAB Radio. It was a good call to wait it out because of the advancement made with DAB+, and in the meantime there are SOME stations that air governmental public radio over regular DAB (not DAB+) in four cities for experimental purposes until all things politically have been settled with.

Recently, commercial radio stations had short trials with transmitting DAB stations just to see how things worked out. They were apparently pleased with the results and agree that DAB Radio should be pushed out as an alternative to FM Radio in Sweden, eventually.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of what's on tv isn't worth expensive hardware. Thank (insert deity of choice) for PBS. The industry almost deserves to die.

Thank the taxpayers and people who donate to PBS. Personally, I could live without it. With the History Channel, the Science Channel, History International, Discovery, Biography, etc., I see no need to have a taxpayer-funded propaganda engine for the left. Same goes for NPR. If they can't make it in the free market, then let them die.

Why the ire against public broadcasting? Here's one example. Sesame Street has made MILLIONS with their brand, but still get tax money. It's time to cut the umbilical cord.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or people could just get off of their lazy asses and go buy one WITHOUT a coupon.

Lazy? Have you tried using one of those coupons? It's a lot of work. Lazy people are the ones not using them. Duh.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[kackle]

First of all, some (all?) of the cheaper $40 boxes have weaker tuners which make the trademark digital picture/sound hiccuping and freezing worse. Secondly, they have less "features": for example, if your converter box doesn't have a change-channel timer in it then your VCR can no longer record more than one show (on a different channel) while you're away from home. Thirdly, shipping for any box is going to be $10 each these days (Circuit City is gone and Best Buy had exactly one brand of converter when I looked). Fourthly, most homes have MORE than one television receiver and each one would need this $75ish box; that could be a problem for someone who's already not making ends meet.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[EpsCylonB]

Actually I would disagree, I live in the UK and our TV sucks compared to American telly.

America produces a lot of television and most of it is rubbish, but the best stuff is head and shoulders above anything else produced in the rest of world. In america they spend much more on their top shows, spend more on writing, production and talent.

House, Sopranos, Dexter, The daily show, 30 Rock, these may just be my personal favorite shows but we have nothing that compares to them here. British telly is probably more dominated by reality tv than in America, even the stuff that gets lauded like the BBC's reinvention of Doctor Who means very little to me.

The only thing the British are still good at (and basically always have been) is documentaries, we have a lot of good factual programming.
 

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[jythie]

The fact that the coupon program ran out of money also impacts this.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[Anonymous Coward]

So I agree with other slashdotters that these persons are guilty of severe procrastination (aka laziness).

It doesn't matter if they are lazy or child-molesters. The lack of funding is why the program is failing.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[donaldm]

Well it's not costing anything to people who aren't in the USA. It is however providing a great source of insight and amusement into the working of the US Government, however before people outside the US think this attitude of "Well it did not work this time around, why not try again but with different wording" does not apply to their government I suggest "think again" after all they are politicians.

From the article

About 6.5 million households are not ready for the transition, according to the latest data from Nielsen Ratings.

IMHO even if you waited 10 years you would most likely find that over 10 million households were not ready and the cycle repeats.

I live in Australia and the government here has mandated 2013 as the switch over. Why so long? Well your guess is as good as mine, however Digital TV is already available here for over two years and many people are using it. Come 2013 I would not be surprised if we don't see some politicians lobby for an Analogue TV extension because of the above.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[rtb61]

Ahh, Finish person, perhaps you don't understand how low the US minimum wage is, or how US food stamps (look it up, believe me, it will shock you) will not pay for that digital tuner. In harsh US economic times it becomes a choice between many cheap junk food meals and a digital TV tuner, the poor have to choose the junk food.

This means that the digital tuners can not be bought and that mass media marketing and corporations will lose their lock on the minds of the poor and suffering and the poor, heaven forbid, will start thinking for themselves, now you can't have that happen, not even for a week or so, it would be a bloody, literally speaking, disaster.

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[Raenex]

The handouts/coupons are only a few million dollars.

A little bit of Googling:

"Federal law allocated $1.5 billion toward the coupon program with a maximum of $160 million to be used toward administrative expenses."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-09-19-DigitalTV_N.htm

That's from last September when they were out of administrative money and asking for more. I'm too lazy to get up-to-date stats. Maybe you can provide more favorable figures?

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[stars_are_number_1]

This is something that's been on my mind about digital channel numbering.

KETK-TV is my local NBC station. It's on analog 56 and digital 22. However, the station refers to itself at channel 56 and shows up on my digital box as channel 56, through virtual channels.

My question, once the transition finally takes place and the dust settles, will KETK start referring to itself at channel 22, or continue to use the virtual moniker of channel 56?

Re:How much MORE is this costing us?

[Anonymous Coward]

Too many people are like Steve Martin when he inquires: "And where are we supposed to get this saved money ?

Great

[Anonymous Coward]

So instead of having just one date that everyone knew about, the switch for your local stations could happen anytime during a 4-month period. I'm sure that won't cause anymore confusion.

Re:Great

[warsql]

I wouldn't want to be the one answering the phones at the first station that turns off its analog signal voluntarily.

Which is another way of saying you can forget about that gradual transition part.

Oh, yeah, that'll work

[russotto]

Firstly, there's a pigeonhole problem here -- in order for some stations to take up their final digital frequency assignments, other stations will have to move theirs (usually back to their analog channel). This is one of the main reasons it was to be done all at once in the first place.

Secondly, this is going to be even MORE confusing. OK, so the person living in a cave for the past few months who comes out turns on their TV on February 18 would have gotten nothing. But at least they'd have some clue that something is wrong. With a gradual transition, maybe they'll lose CBS but not NBC and Fox... then the next month they'll lose Fox but keep CBS, etc. That's not making things any simpler.

Re:Oh, yeah, that'll work

[0100010001010011]

All our local channels say they aren't delaying, no matter what the congress decides. There are reports last time this came up that some stations have already switched.

Imagine you're running IT/electrical for one of these channels. You've been planning for months to shut everything off on a certain date. You're planning on rolling out digital channels in early Feb and cutting the analog mid Feb, it'll cost a ton to just switch that plan up.

Re:Oh, yeah, that'll work

[russotto]

All our local channels say they aren't delaying, no matter what the congress decides. There are reports last time this came up that some stations have already switched.

Congress (or the FCC given enough authority from Congress) can say "If you want to keep your digital license, you have to keep your analog station running until the transition."

Of course, if they do that, it'll be a major problem for stations with facilities leased until 2/17/2009...

Re:Oh, yeah, that'll work

[PJ1216]

Considering this new bill says they aren't forcing any of them to keep analog, I don't see this being an issue.

Re:Oh, yeah, that'll work

[Anonymous Coward]

"some stations to take up their final digital frequency assignments..."

What are you talking about.

Television doesn't work that way. There are national broadcasters, regional broadcasters, and local broadcasters. They all moved to digital a long time ago 'in their plant'. There are no analog plants left. There may be analog silos within those facilities but they long ago switched to digital at the ingress and egress points to take advantage of MPEG-2 technology. What is left is not some magic reallocation of channel bandwidth on either cable or antenna (off-air). Off air transmission (counter intuitive name) moved to digital a long time ago as well EXCEPT for their output for cable. Its all digital up to the point that it switches back (decodes to) analog. For any broadcaster this is simply a matter of switching OFF what is till there, freeing up spectrum. The actual spectrum reassignment will take place in *minutes* since the mapping of content to spectrum is completely arbitrary to begin with.

What everyone is worried about is not the cable plant, broadcaster, frequency/spectrum reassignment, technology, or anything else to do with the source of the transmission, it is simply the consumer backlash that everyone is worried about.

Re:Oh, yeah, that'll work

[mpe]

Congress (or the FCC given enough authority from Congress) can say "If you want to keep your digital license, you have to keep your analog station running until the transition."

On the other hand a station can turn around and say "we have already made all the arrangements to switch and can't rely on the hardware even still being there after the 17th of Feb."

Re:Oh, yeah, that'll work

[frovingslosh]

Yea, this is stupid in so many ways. Telling a TV station that they can turn off their analog signal if they want, but that their competition will leave theirs on, is pretty much an assurance that even those who want to make the change in February will wait it out rather than risk the loss of some fools who have not upgraded. And if we have to move the switchover because some dolts are still not ready after a decade of notice and an intense year of in-your-face messages that no one who watches TV could have missed, then we might as well not ever turn off analog, those same people will still not be ready in four months or even four years (unless their old set dies and they manage to buy a new digital ready set).

Re:Oh, yeah, that'll work

[camperslo]

>>"some stations to take up their final digital frequency assignments..."

>What are you talking about.

>Television doesn't work that way. ... The actual spectrum reassignment will take place in *minutes* since the mapping of content to spectrum is completely arbitrary to begin with.

The digital program content format in a tv studio and the modulation method for putting that information onto a radio-frequency signal are two different things. The television frequency ranges associated with channels 2-69 (soon to be only 2-51) are the same whether a digital or analog transmission is used. If a "station" is broadcasting digital and analog, it is using two channels and two transmitters to do it. Running both analog and digital at once has required some temporary channel assignments for DTV. Shutting down channels 52 and up completely, and shutting down the full-power analog transmitters will free channels allowing the digital stations to use their final assignments and power levels.
The channel number (with a decimal) displayed by a digital tv is a number picked by the broadcaster for display purposes only. It does NOT have to match the actual broadcast channel used. In most cases broadcasters have chosen to display their (analog) channel number before the decimal since that is the number viewers already know.

To learn about how the digital content for an ATSC broadcast is put onto the radio-frequency signal, read about 8VSB modulation.

Moving the digital transmission between two different channels (actual frequency change, not display change) is a big deal. It generally involves a different antenna. We're talking about something large and expensive, generally way up on a tower, often on a mountain top. In many cases it also involves a new transmitter, depending on the power levels and frequencies involved. Moving isn't like setting some encoder setting in software or with dip switches. Since some stations bought digital equipment which they can't use after the transition date, some are planning on buying/selling equipment from each other at that time. So the schedule of one may affect another... Turning off an analog transmitter is easy enough, but there's more going on in many cases.

Re:Oh, yeah, that'll work

[mattwarden]

Cost a ton to have your competitors able to reach a higher percentage of the audience than you.

Re:Oh, yeah, that'll work

[commodore64_love]

>>>>>All our local channels say they aren't delaying, no matter what the congress decides.

>>Congress (or the FCC) can say "If you want to keep your digital license, you have to keep your analog station running until the transition."

Is Congress going to revoke the licenses for 2000-plus TV stations that choose to switch-off their analog channels on February 18? And thereby end ABC/CBS/FOX/NBC/CW/MyNetTV/Univision/Telemundo/PBS/Ion.... broadcasting across the North American continent?

I doubt it.

When faced with that level of revolt, politicians will just silently do nothing. Politicians have an instinct for preservation.

Re:Oh, yeah, that'll work

[commodore64_love]

>>>there's a pigeonhole problem here -- in order for some stations to take up their final digital frequency assignments, other stations will have to move theirs

Very true. In my area multiple Digital stations are counting-on Analog stations to "disappear", otherwise they cannot move. For example: Harrisburg's 27 is moving to DT-10 with increased power, but it can't do that until Philadelphia's analog 10 turns-off, otherwise they'll be mega interference and nobody will see anything. All of this has to be coordinated to the precise minute (midnight Feb 17)... it cannot be randomly "spread out" across four months time. It won't work.

Re:Oh, yeah, that'll work

[commodore64_love]

>>>>>"some stations to take up their final digital frequency assignments..."

>>What are you talking about. ... What is left is not some magic reallocation of channel bandwidth

YES there is a reallocation of channels. For example: Harrisburg's 27 is moving to DT-10 with increased power, but it can't do that until Philadelphia's analog 10 turns-off, otherwise there will be overlap on channel 10, and the viewers will not see anything. That's why the original plan was to coordinate all the channel "movements" at midnight February 17, and avoid any overlaps.

But now if the transition happens over four months time, there's a very real possibility that Harrisburg's DT-10 will "smack" into Philadelphia's analog 10, and it will be royal mess.

Slowly Now

[jswinth]

Yes, yes, lets rip off that bandage as slooooowly as possible so we extend the pain and confusion as long as possible.

< /sarcasm>

Re:Slowly Now

[Exawatt]

This is actually a very good metaphor for what's going on.

I hope you don't mind that I will steal it for use in my own conversations to help me seem more witty and interesting.

ONE question

[v1]

WHY?

Re:ONE question

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, obviously someone is lobbying the government to take this course of action. The question is who?

Is it the TV stations, because they know that enough converters haven't been sold to ensure that everyone can keep watching?

Is it the manufacturers of the converters because they don't feel like they've sold enough?

Is it the government because it knows how many coupons have(n't) been redeemed vs the number of people who watch TV?

Or is it someone else...? Are there some television stations that haven't yet converted all of their transmitters and want more time?

Re:ONE question

[Farmer Pete]

You forgot that they have like 1.5 million people on a waiting list for the converters. Of course, none of the legislation passed forces them to use more of their cash for the converters. They just want to wait till the ones they've given out expire so that they can reissue them.

Re:ONE question

[MrBlue VT]

It is Clearwire that has a vested interest in this delay. They are attempting to roll out WiMax service to compete with the broadband 4G service Verizon is planning to offer on the freed up analog frequencies.

And guess which company one of the executives on Obama's DTV transition team works for? That's right, Clearwire...

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/01/4g-war-conflict-of-interests-loom-behind-possible-dtv-delay.ars

Re:ONE question

[Anonymous Coward]

instead of delaying dtv because the people on the wating list dont have a coupon, just give the people on the list a $40 tax credit for 2009 and get on with the dtv switch.

To the people who would say "But the poor people can't buy one then". My response would be if someone can't scrape together $40 in a year(that's about how long these announcemnts on tv have been running) then they might need financial assistance in other, more important, areas of their life such as food, clothing, shelter, etc. before getting money for a converter box. But I digress, some of the "poor people" find watching Jerry Springer more important than fixing the hole in their roof.

Re:ONE question

[isdnip]

No, Clearwire isn't involved in the DTV transition.

Clearwire and Sprint have a near-lock on the 2500-2690 MHz band. Nextel and Sprint (before the merger) had been buying up licenses there, some of which were originally MMDS "wireless cable" (an early-1990s failure). They also have leases on some of the educational channels there (held by universities, schools, and churches -- the Catholic Church is the largest holder).

The 700 MHz bands were auctioned off, with Verizon, ATT, T-Mobile, and other cellular/mobile providers being the major buyers. VZW and ATT bid them up high in a desperate move to keep newcomers from getting the licenses. Also, Qualcomm bought two TV channels (55 and 56) for MediaFlo.

Re:ONE question

[Toonol]

If someone is so poor that $40 is a budget strain, then their 12 year old 19" tv might be their primary and least expensive source of entertainment and news.

Re:ONE question

[commodore64_love]

Well said.

It's amazing how many fucking idiots can't grasp the simple concept that, without help, many poor people will have NO television whatsoever. That means no warning when a hurricane smashes into Texas, or tornado sweeps through Oklahoma, or the next Katrina comes along to flood Orleans.

And then President Obama would get blamed.

Re:ONE question

[Megane]

That means no warning when a hurricane smashes into Texas, or tornado sweeps through Oklahoma, or the next Katrina comes along to flood Orleans.

If only we had some way to give these people a warning without pictures, then we could save millions of lives! We could maybe even have the government give us money to put it in every vehicle ever manufactured, then people could even hear the warnings while they're evacuating!

Re:ONE question

[Megane]

Clearwire is "involved" because their competition is going to use the DTV frequencies, and they could have a four month jump on the competition.

Re:ONE question

[swalker42]

And then President Obama would get blamed.

Nope, still Bush's fault.

PLEASE stop

[PeeAitchPee]

There will always be millions of people who will have problems with the switchover. Most are poor and / or elderly. No amount of delay and / or money thrown at the problem will fix it. Just flip the damn switch already and deal with the small percentage of folks negatively affected. Seriously, this has been in the works for years -- if you don't know about it by now, you won't until your picture turns to a bunch of static.

Re:PLEASE stop

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the elderly were shown to be one of the most prepared groups to make the digital transition.

Re:PLEASE stop

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? That's a shame, because they also constitute the part of the problem that can easiest be solved by just waiting it out.

Re:PLEASE stop

[forkazoo]

There will always be millions of people who will have problems with the switchover. Most are poor and / or elderly. No amount of delay and / or money thrown at the problem will fix it. Just flip the damn switch already and deal with the small percentage of folks negatively affected. Seriously, this has been in the works for years -- if you don't know about it by now, you won't until your picture turns to a bunch of stati

Actually, if you look at the statistics, the most "unprepared" group is young people rather than poor/elderly. That is, the most tech savvy group which could most easily hook up a box to their TV if they cared. The politicians are just unable to comprehend that large groups just don't care. Larger groups don't care than will be negatively effected. All the statistics seem to foxus on "is there a TV in your house which won't recieve digital broadcasts," but I still have yet to see any statistics based on a survey which included the question "Do you actually even give a fuck about the TV, or will you just keep using facebook as a passtime or maybe read a book?"

As for the small group of poor people who applied for coupons, but haven't gotten them. Well, the senate should stop fucking around with the damned delay and just try to make sure that they get their coupons. I mean, maybe some of the people who really love their TV will be without it for a month until they get the coupon. So what? Seriously, so fucking what? The worst case scenario is that they spend a small amount of time waiting for the coupon to come, and some of them take up a more fulfilling hobby than watching TV. The rest just listen to the radio. BFD.

Re:PLEASE stop

[Firethorn]

I've recently bought a new tv with a digital tuner. To play around, I've been watching a bit more TV.

I'm currently wondering 'When did the TV stations start selling prime time air to infomercials?'.

Gah, I'm back to getting a box or at least a cable run over from my computer to play stuff. If that's the stuff they're going to play, I'll get my videos from netflix.

Re:PLEASE stop

[Rich0]

WHAT!!! And make people choose between TV and food!???

To arms! Pitchforks and torches!!!!

Re:PLEASE stop

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention that most stations will probably flash cut to digital on 2/17 anyway as scheduled. http://www.hdtvexpert.com/pages_c/TheDigitalDelay.html

this is bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't stand when this shit happens. What a waste of time! After that date no doubt they'll delay it yet again. I'm also one that doesn't watch (and can't stand to watch) television.

The propaganda tools must be fully in place for a transition it seems. Without TV where's your Orwellian scenario of "big brother" telling you what to do and what's important?

Total bullshit at the highest level!

Think about it, when it's raining outside, without the TV people wouldn't know what to do. Thank god the weather man tells them to bring an umbrella! Otherwise the people would get wet, or god forbid have to think for themselves. The Gov't doesn't want that you see.

Re:this is bullshit

[porcupine8]

Yeah, stick it to those sheeple! They're just like your parents and that bitch in your Intro to Sociology class who wouldn't go on a date with you. She just couldn't handle someone as edgy as you, who thinks for himself and doesn't buy into mainstream conceptions of masculine appearance.

Re:this is bullshit

[Toonol]

This may be a nearly perfect retort. Dripping with sarcasm, yet more psychologically illuminating than a year of therapy. With your permission, I will use variants of it in many conversations in the future.

Why???!??

[Directrix1]

What the fuck is the point of this? That spectrum has a new use which is only getting delayed yet again because of this. Why are they delaying? Its not like TV is something that you can't live without. And if you still haven't figured out that you need to upgrade your TV then either you: A) don't have a brain B) are senile and will probably never get the point C) rarely use your TV so it doesn't matter anyway. If they do this stupid delay I hope they at least make the analog required to just display 24/7 a text message stating that they need a digital TV or converter box with audio of a person reading it it in English and Spanish. Maybe then the last of the morons might get it.

Re:Why???!??

[Anonymous Coward]

But where do I get these CONVERTER BOXES?

Re:Why???!??

[Anonymous Coward]

Or D) applied for their coupon months ago and received it only to have it expired the same week.

Re:Why???!??

[mpe]

That spectrum has a new use which is only getting delayed yet again because of this. Why are they delaying?

Which is likely to cost plenty of people money they can't afford.

Its not like TV is something that you can't live without.

Anyone who really can't can probably scrape enough money together to buy a converter box. No doubt every TV "repairman" has made sure they have plenty to hand for that weekend :)

If you don't like it...

[shadoelord]

then please be sure to write your congressman and let them know. It was narrowly defeated last time, so the more people complaining the better chance it will be defeated again.

Re:If you don't like it...

[soupforare]

The real solution is to stop voting for incumbents. Nothing's going to change until we get rid of career politicians.

Re:If you don't like it...

[mrsquid0]

>The real solution is to stop voting for incumbents. Nothing's
>going to change until we get rid of career politicians.

We tried that in 1996. It did not work very well.

Re:If you don't like it...

[Titoxd]

The real solution is to stop voting for incumbents. Nothing's going to change until we get rid of career politicians.

If they got to Congress, they already are career politicians.

Re:If you don't like it...

[Miseph]

And for those of us who like our incumbents? It's not like they were elected last time because everyone disliked them so much.

Change for the sake of change isn't helpful, and it's not going to fix much of anything.

Re:If you don't like it...

[BetterSense]

The real solution is to nuke them from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Going postal

[goombah99]

it's fear. If tens of million of people can't watch TV for a week, there's going to be a lot of grumpy people. I suspect that some people won't even be able to sleep without their before bedtime TV ritual.

Just like when there's a black out and there's increase rioting there will be people milling around with nothing to do looking for trouble.

Yes a few "enlightened" individuals will have a rebirth as they discover life without TV. I predict a raft of books on the topic of self actualization in 6 months.

But a much large set will not take it well I think.

Then of course there's the simple logistics of how you stock and sell that many flat screen TVs. I suspect this is non-trivial. There just are not that many unhelpful sales clerks to go around, let alone to process the returns when people find a better buy the next week.

Don't say cable cause there are even less cable instalers and they are even less helpful.

plus think of your broadband when everyone on your block gets cable plus internet.

there will be price gouging. etc...

a staged transition sounds sensible to me.

Re:Going postal

[BradleyUffner]

Then of course there's the simple logistics of how you stock and sell that many flat screen TVs. I suspect this is non-trivial. There just are not that many unhelpful sales clerks to go around, let alone to process the returns when people find a better buy the next week.

What do flat panel TVs have to do with the switch at all? You do realize that old CRTs will continue to work perfectly, right? This is all about signal decoding and if the TV is capable of decoding the signal properly, not about how it's displayed by the device.

Re:Going postal

[Anonymous Coward]

We've had a staged transition. ATSC was approved in 1996 and has been in use in most markets for over 3 years. In many markets, you can use an ATSC tuner now to get most or all of the channels you could get with an NTSC tuner.

Also note that you do not need a flat screen TV. First off, CRTs are sold with ATSC (and QAM) tuners. Secondly, they sell these things called "converter boxes" that are just an ATSC tuner with NTSC baseband composite and modulated outputs. With only roughly 2% "unprepared" and many of those people who just don't care about TV or didn't have TV reception in the first place, this is a non-issue except in major markets where the market can very easily support a large number of non-ready consumers.

Re:Going postal

[sleigher]

Well I think the US chose the wrong time to switch. We should have done the switch Saturday Jan 31st. Then half the country would have missed the Superbowl and maybe that would be the catalyst for change in DC. I swear that could work.....

Re:Going postal

[delvsional]

We should have done the switch Saturday Jan 31st. Then half the country would have missed the Superbowl

Awesome

Re:Going postal

[Anonymous Coward]

Oddly they didn't make it Dec 31st because the NFL and advertising community were freaked out about what it would do to the Super Bowl. Retailers wanted it then to boost TV sales. Or so I've heard.

Re:Going postal

[Anonymous Coward]

The birthrate after a blackout goes up significantly. Maybe we just don't want to deal a surge in population caused by people "entertaining" themselves if there's no TV.

Re:Going postal

[tonsofpcs]

The last day permissible for analog television broadcasts from full power stations was December 31, 2006 before it got changed by a different act of congress to February 17, 2009.

Re:Going postal

[T-Bone-T]

You haven't been in a store that sells TVs lately, have you? Recently manufactured TVs have digital tuners built-in and the majority of TVs available in store are flat-panel TVs.

Re:Going postal

[nku]

Not to mention a lot of unhappy advertisers who would have paid in millions for a chance to get to the masses. Nobody would have approved the timeline.

The people already spoke, drop the issue please...

[Anonymous Coward]

And maybe work on the economy. Kthx

Eat more chikin'

[sambira]

Makes me wonder what is being tied to this bill that makes legislators want to postpone or "phase in" the conversion to DTV.

Re:Eat more chikin'

[Dachannien]

As it turns out, nothing.

Re:Eat more chikin'

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is freakin' television the one thing they think is too important to tie pork to??

Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

TV stations around the country could choose when they wanted to make the change, allowing those who have already begun plans to stop analog transmission to continue their shut-down operations.

Are you seriously saying that the previous legislation prohibited any channels from switching to digital any earlier than absolutely required? WHY ???

Re:Huh?

[w9wi]

I don't know where he got that. A paragraph of the original bill explicitly allowed stations to sign off at any date earlier than June 12th provided they meet notification requirements already in the FCC regulations.

There is no change in that paragraph in the new bill.

I haven't read the entire new bill but I'm not sure there's any difference between the old and new bills. I think all they're doing is running it through the regular committee system so it only needs a 1/2 majority, not 2/3, to pass.

Death of Broadcast Television

[chill]

After seeing enough reports on the switch on TV, my wife who hates computers, asked me last night "Can you find the shows I watch online?" After we found them, she then said "What do we need the TV for?" And that is the big question.

My kids haven't watched TV, other than something in a restaurant or doctor's waiting room, in a couple years now. They watch everything online. Of the three shows my wife watches, two are available online at the network sites and the third can be found via torrents. Actually, all three are available on the network sites, it is just ABC USES SOME FUCKING PROPRIETARY PLAYER THAT DOESN'T WORK ON LINUX! Thus, we either live without that show (no big deal) or hit Pirate Bay. ABC, are you listening? Just use a standard Flash player like everyone else.

While some of the people still watching broadcast TV don't have broadband, most of those fall into the "old people -- gonna die soon" demographic. What happens to broadcast in 10 years?

Re:Death of Broadcast Television

[Pentium100]

After we found them, she then said "What do we need the TV for?" And that is the big question.

Well, good for her. I also prefer torrents to TV, but not all TV shows are available on TPB (or other trackers). While some of them are available at the national TV site, they are in such poor quality that makes VHS look like HD compared to the online version. So I record those shows to VHS. By the way, I o not live in the US.

Re:Death of Broadcast Television

[Jeff DeMaagd]

While some of the people still watching broadcast TV don't have broadband, most of those fall into the "old people -- gonna die soon" demographic.

ABC USES SOME FUCKING PROPRIETARY PLAYER THAT DOESN'T WORK ON LINUX!

I think the group of people that miss out on ABC because they use Linux may be smaller than the number that would miss out on ABC because they didn't get a tuner box yet.

Linux users are in such a small demographic, I doubt any major media company would miss them, it's still too small of a niche.

Re:Death of Broadcast Television

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't watch *any* "shows". They are all BAD (in the Fussell sense). However, the one thing that many people love is LIVE SPORTS! Yes, I know about TvAnts, etc, but until there's a legal way to watch Federer vs. Nadal, the Superbowl, or your favorite baseball team on the internet, TV is staying around.

Re:Death of Broadcast Television

[chill]

Yeah, but I bitched none-the-less. :-)

I was just pointing out that both CBS and NBC seem to use a standard Flash player and I didn't have these issues with their competitors. I'll happily do without ABC.

Re:Death of Broadcast Television

[sherriw]

I'm 28, technologically savvy and I watch free, broadcast TV. Because I refuse to pay for the crap they're offering these days. If there's nothing on... I know that I'm not pay $60/m for it.

Re:Death of Broadcast Television

[jedidiah]

> I think the group of people that miss out on ABC because they use Linux may
> be smaller than the number that would miss out on ABC because they didn't get
> a tuner box yet.

If ABC chooses to do things differently for no good reason, they risk
their solution having other problems that won't effect their rivals.
This isn't necessarily just about Linux. They could cause more trouble
for their Windows viewership. Will it break with Firefox or Opera? Will
it break with a different version of Windows or IE? Will older users
end up unsupported.

"rolling your own" can be it's own can of worms.

Re:Death of Broadcast Television

[Anonymous Coward]

Oops
Our new video player is only available for:
Windows XP/Vista - Internet Explorer, Firefox
Mac - Firefox, Safari.
To watch, please download the appropriate browser.

Re:Death of Broadcast Television

[GleeBot]

I don't watch broadcast TV (because there aren't many shows on that I want to watch), but I still have a digital TV tuner. It's nice to be able to tune in for big events like the Olympics, or the Super Bowl (if you're into that), or local news when there's a wildfire nearby and things of that nature. And PBS occasionally has something I want to watch, and their digital TV content is usually terrific.

The Internet is only a replacement for TV if the only use you have for TV is viewing packaged shows. (And even then, for social viewing, I prefer to curl up in front of a big TV with friends and family, than huddle around my computer.)

Re:Death of Broadcast Television

[timeOday]

"What do we need the TV for?" And that is the big question.

Ironic that you would write that the day before the Superbowl. Tomorrow 100 million Americans will be watching a high-def videostream live as it happens. Broadcast is superbly well-suited for this.

And by the way, if you have satellite or cable, you might want to try the broadcast stream anyways, since I hear it's higher bitrate.

Re:Death of Broadcast Television

[Anonymous Coward]

You can use Boxee to watch ABC's online content on Linux.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10149079-1.html

Re:Death of Broadcast Television

[Anonymous Coward]

I also prefer torrents to TV, but not all TV shows are available on TPB (or other trackers).

If it's something 1% of the population watches, it's available.
Less than that?
Ever think that it might not be worth watching?

Re:Death of Broadcast Television

[Pentium100]

You see, the material posted on ThePirateBay is usually in English or Swedish, and the TV shows I watch are in neither language. So, since it's in a language that only a small (compared to English language) number of people can understand, no one is bothering to put it on there (I too). I am a member of a local tracker, but the TV shows I want aren't there either. Maybe because I have a crappy upload speed and I did not upload my recordings?

As for it not being worth to watch - the TV shows I watch are either old music recordings or music performances by old musicians (those, who were performing before I was even born). I like that music and recording it off the TV is one way of getting it. The other ways would be downloading it (only small percentage available) or buy records (also, only a small percentage available, also, may be expensive). The national broadcaster is broadcasting parts of old concerts on TV, I record them and then piece them together (usually one concert is split over a few days, 45min each day including commercials).

Also: for you to be able to download a TV show and watch it, someone has to record it and then upload it to you (well, not you directly, but you get the idea). I would upload my recording if my upload speed was at least 10mbit (now it's measly 768kbps) and I knew how to encode a video file so it's high quality (the same as VHS), but does not take much space).

Re:Death of Broadcast Television

[Espectr0]

After seeing enough reports on the switch on TV, my wife who hates computers, asked me last night "Can you find the shows I watch online?" After we found them, she then said "What do we need the TV for?" And that is the big question.

Typical slashdot elitism. While a TV may not be needed at your home, you are a minority, because:

-Most monitors are under 30 inches. Most TVs nowadays are over 30 inches
-Bandwidth isn't that good and ubiquitous yet. Who wants to wait while their shows get streamed? How about full HD shows? Is your bandwidth up for it?

Families can't sit around computer monitors yet and with a remote control "switch channels" and begin to watch shows. You need to visit a site, find the show, click watch... It is too cumbersome for most people.

TVs are here to stay for now.

Re:Death of Broadcast Television

[powerlord]

The wife's question of "What do we need the TV for?" was really "What do we need CABLE/SATELLITE TV for?"

The GP even goes on to say that the kids watch things over the internet, and that their programs are available on-line.

They aren't really questioning the medium so much as the delivery mechanism. I agree with most of their points, but agree with you that the TV set itself isn't going away anytime soon. Its just that the Cable/Satellite box will be replaced by a box that can deal with time shifting ATSC signals along with streaming from the internet (Hulu/ABC/NetFlix), and Video On Demand (Rentals/Purchases from Amazon Video/iTunes/Sony Video/MicroSoft Marketplace).

We've already got:
MythTV and TiVo that fulfill most of those functions, and AppleTV and PS3/Xbox 360 that fulfill some of those functions (no ATSC tuner).

Bluntly, pick one from column A and one from column B and you probably can ditch Cable/Satellite in favor of a cheaper yearly solution even if you're purchasing all your content legitimately (I don't download from TPB).

Re:Death of Broadcast Television

[GWBasic]

What happens to broadcast in 10 years?

The same thing that happened to vinyl records and CDs.

It'll be here because a lot of people switch slowly, or will somehow delude themselves into thinking it's better. Broadcast TV is still better for shows with a high viewership; like the Super Bowl, because of bandwidth issues. Frankly, broadcast HDTV still trumps most stuff I get over the 'tubes in quality; although I would expect that to change within 10 years.

The real question is "What happens to broadcast TV in 50 years?

Re:Death of Broadcast Television

[tuxic]

Are you sure that is going to be true in a couple of years from now, when more netbooks have been sold with Linux on them, and people go online to watch tv shows?

Re:Death of Broadcast Television

[jedidiah]

I just use an HD Homerun.

New stuff in is High Definition suitable for playback on many legacy devices.

I can slice it. I can dice it. I can skip the commercials. I can seek anywhere in the show.

A broadcast network being dicks about their online content is really silly.

I predicted this years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Years ago, when Feb 2009 was a distant point in the future, I told anyone who would listen that before the actual date occured, the politicians would get cold feet and become extremely scared about their next election vote when Joe Sixpack loses his analog TV signal.

And look what is happening. Just as Joe Sixpack is about to lose his analog TV signal, the politicians are getting cold feet and becoming extremely scared that they just might not get reelected next election because of it, and are delaying.

What has surprised me is just how close they've let themselves get to the fire before panicing and running scared.

And, of course, the best thing for the country would be if Joe Sixpack lost his analog TV, and then responded by throwing out every single member of the House and Senate because of it. We'd be better of with a clean sweep of all the "old guard" from there.

Re:I predicted this years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right. We should have made the switch today. What? No Superbowl!?!? Then every American would go to DC with a torch and pitchfork and we could see real change. People should know by now, nothing happens in America unless someone is going to profit. Simple as that.

Let your "yes" be yes and your "no" be no

[nickruiz]

That should be the motto of our government. If the government sets a deadline, they should hold to it, instead of wasting time and tax dollars by pushing back the finish line. What's wrong with making a decision and sticking to it, if there is no quantified risk to continue?

Just ensure that the vouchers are getting out to the people who haven't received them already. The people can do the rest. If they procrastinate, then let them reap the benefits of procrastination.

Apologies if I sound troll.

Re:Let your "yes" be yes and your "no" be no

[BetterSense]

>>If the government sets a deadline, they should hold to it, instead of wasting time and tax dollars by pushing back Is the FCC vulnerable to anti-trust lawsuits? I somehow doubt it. Government: doing things that would get normal people or companies thrown in prison since....forever?

Re:Let your "yes" be yes and your "no" be no

[PeeAitchPee]

The LAST thing our government wants is accountability -- either for its citizens or itself. There's no fuckup they think they can't solve by throwing hundreds of billions of dollars at it, even if the fuckup doesn't really exist. When that's the way you operate, there's no need to hold anyone accountable for their decisions.

No Real Surprise

[Shisouka]

This isn't really much of a surprise. How long has this transition been in the works? And how many times has it been delayed so far?

So no more analog torrent files then?

[meist3r]

Or am I doing it wrong?

It's the Democrats who are doing this

[Anonymous Coward]

The Republicans want to keep DTV on schedule.

Enjoy the "change" that you elected.

The REAL cost of delaying the switch.

[Captain Digital]

This from the party of "Green" everything? Here's the REAL story...a buddy of mine (who's dad is the chief engineer at an Amarillo, Texas TV station) tells me that it costs about $10,000 per month in electricity to run a transmitter. That's ONE transmitter - for either analog or digital. When you add a second transmitter, you double the juice, and double the cost. Same data. Same shows. Same commercials - just costs twice as much to air it. Now figure that there are over 300 local TV stations in the US. Delay the transition until June, and you're talking over $12,000,000 in wasted money (that the stations can't bill anybody for) and wasted electricity. How many friggin' mercury-filled florescent lightbulbs and carbon offsets will it take to make up for that kind of waste, hmm? While we're on the subject, how many people in the US don't have either cable or satellite TV? Seriously...I've asked as many low-income people I know or run into, and I've yet to find ANYbody that gets their TV through rabbit ears or a roof antenna. Wouldn't it be cheaper to buy the handful of Luddites new TVs and be done with it?

Re:The REAL cost of delaying the switch.

[soupforare]

Nevermind the greenies. How many station owners are going to be selling out because they just can't afford to be burning money?

Re:The REAL cost of delaying the switch.

[Nimey]

Sounds like a good reason for the station owners to kill their analog towers on schedule.

Re:The REAL cost of delaying the switch.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are 210 local markets in the country. Each market has at least three [3] full power stations (many have ten [10] or more). That's a lot more than 300.

Re:The REAL cost of delaying the switch.

[LurkerXXX]

Read the story again. Stations can switch over any time they want during the 4 month period. Have all your ducks in a row and don't want to waste money? Go ahead and switch.

One of the local stations is switching to new frequencies and a new tower and had some delays getting all the new equipment they were buying. Now they've got it but they can't get it installed at the moment because it's the middle of the freaking winter here, and installing new equipment outside is a PITA when a foot of new snow fell in the past couple days.

Giving the 4 month window allows my local station to wait a few weeks for a window of good weather in the forcast to get all the new equipment set up easily and safely for their workers. If they want to delay a few weeks for ease and safety, letting them sounds like a good idea, doesn't it?

That's the REAL story.

Re:The REAL cost of delaying the switch.

[Anonymous Coward]

Calm down, kiddies. The grownups are in charge now, and they know best.

Re:The REAL cost of delaying the switch.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not double.

The power requirements of digital transmitters are much lower then their respective analogue transmitters. Looks like in the exchange of information you missed some details. It also sounds like a lower power transmitter since the last largest transmitter I worked with was about 25k/month.

Interestingly enough, our distribution was 90% terrestrial with direct feeds to all distribution channels in the area. That means we literally only lost 10% of our audience when the analogue went down.

I know several stations who want to flip the switch now simply because of the savings. Had the FCC let us we would have killed it a long time ago.

Re:The REAL cost of delaying the switch.

[DarkOx]

That has been my experience with low income people as well.. They are either so attached to the low quality media on cable that they are willing to pay for it or don't understand the value of money. I know alot more middle class people who earn a good salary and certainly could divert a little money from savings to cable and choose not to do so.

Re:The REAL cost of delaying the switch.

[mpe]

This from the party of "Green" everything? Here's the REAL story...a buddy of mine (who's dad is the chief engineer at an Amarillo, Texas TV station) tells me that it costs about $10,000 per month in electricity to run a transmitter. That's ONE transmitter - for either analog or digital. When you add a second transmitter, you double the juice, and double the cost.

It's even worst that than that since with digital you can have several "stations" on one "channel". Which you'd think would keep the "greenies" happy both with using less power and putting out less RF energy :)

Re:The REAL cost of delaying the switch.

[lord sibn]

As one of your "luddites," I can only greet this idea with utmost enthusiasm. I have owned a TV for less than 3 weeks. It's so old, it's a CRT. It's so old, the inputs are coax or component. It's so old, I'd really like to have a newfangled TV for free. Where do I sign up?

Re:The REAL cost of delaying the switch.

[porcupine8]

Just for the sake of screwing up your anecdata, I'll go ahead and tell you that I use rabbit ears. Cable is just not even close to being worth $50/month for me. Not only don't I watch enough TV to make it worth it, I don't want to watch enough to make it worth it - I have nothing against watching TV, but I also don't want to spend 15+ hours a week doing it. I have Netflix, and for a fraction of the price have access to plenty of shows I wouldn't otherwise. Or there's the internet, though I prefer watching things on my TV from my couch so I only do that when it's necessary (for current BSG episodes, for instance).

That said, if they let me choose any 10-15 cable channels for under $25/month, I'd be all over it.

Re:The REAL cost of delaying the switch.

[Lord Byron II]

Email me and I'll send you the address you can send my new TV to.

Seriously, /. is not a representative sample. We're tech people so of course we all have cable/satellite, have known about the transition since the beginning, and know how to download shows off the Internet. For us, Feb 17th is just another day, but for a lot of people it's going to be a big surprise.

For example, my cable company has been running ads that make Feb 17th sound like the end of a sale their having, not the end of analog broadcast. Other people may have bought HDTVs and think that the "D" stands for digital.

Re:The REAL cost of delaying the switch.

[Toonol]

Lots of people get television over the air. Asking friends is very biased way to get samples.

If you're concerned about the environment, think about how many perfectly fine televisions are going to end up in landfills because of this. Many people are buying a new television and chucking their old. Also, it's not uncommon to have small televisions in bedrooms, garages, kitchens, etc... these won't be replaced with a new $500 model. Probably, they'll just get thrown away.

I bet the transition is going to be directly responsible for at least tens of millions of dumped televisions this year. Perfectly good televisions, that have been obsoleted by solely legal dictate.

Re:The REAL cost of delaying the switch.

[budgenator]

Not to mention the number of people who will simply say screw it and replace their 15 year old obsolete energy hog CRT TV with a modern and much more energy efficient LCD TV that is digital ready.

Re:The REAL cost of delaying the switch.

[Toonol]

However, a switch will inevitably result in reduced viewership. I don't think anybody knows whether it will drop 5% or 30%, but it will drop. The cost savings of cutting one transmission needs to be balanced against that unknown quantity.

Re:The REAL cost of delaying the switch.

[Toonol]

Other people may have bought HDTVs and think that the "D" stands for digital.

I know that assumption is wrong, but it kind of coincidentally works, doesn't it? Were there any consumer HDTV televisions that don't have a DTV tuner included?

Re:The REAL cost of delaying the switch.

[budgenator]

you can get the full episodes of BSG from here

Re:The REAL cost of delaying the switch.

[antdude]

Where do you live that you don't know people with OTA? I know plenty of people who use OTA in and outside of L.A. area. They're all under 30 miles from most of the transmitters on Mt. Wilson.

Re:The REAL cost of delaying the switch.

[Anonymous Coward]

So there was no clear weather before the original proposed switch over? With a proper plan, there seems like there was plenty of time to safely switch over.

Re:The REAL cost of delaying the switch.

[Anonymous Coward]

Rabbit ears here. We choose not to have satellite. Last time I did the math, we had saved $7000 and don't feel like we are missing much. Cable company doesn't run down our dirt road, but we probably wouldn't pay them either.

We received about ten analog stations over the air. That seems to be increasing with digital, not even counting the multiple stations/channel.

Nationwide, I think there are three million households that have a TV, but no sat/cable. Plus lots of houses have a second tv that isn't connected to a cable box.

But I'm not in favor of delaying the switch.

Re:The REAL cost of delaying the switch.

[limekiller4]

CD writes:
"While we're on the subject, how many people in the US don't have either cable or satellite TV? Seriously...I've asked as many low-income people I know or run into, and I've yet to find ANYbody that gets their TV through rabbit ears or a roof antenna.?"

I work in a retail electronics store just outside Albany, NY, and we sell perhaps 20-40 tv-top antennas per month. And this is a strip mall.

Re:The REAL cost of delaying the switch.

[LurkerXXX]

If you'd bother to read, there was a delay getting the equipment from the manufacturers. Not bad planning by the station.

Re:The REAL cost of delaying the switch.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, in fact almost ALL of them until the last year or so. Called them MONITORS, so they did not have to spring for the tuner. And since they contained NO tuners, the regulations did not apply. Basically the same reason tuners disappeared from DVD and VCRs as well....

Re:The REAL cost of delaying the switch.

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the L.A. Times, 1 in 5 households have only over-the-air television reception. http://articles.latimes.com/2007/mar/28/business/fi-digital28

There's anecdotal evidence that some people are dropping their cable or satellite service after seeing the quality of OTA digital broadcasts.

Then there are some Luddites like me who have an antenna in the attic for OTA television and a 5TB Solaris/ZFS media server in the basement for all of the stuff I've recorded since 2005 or so.

By the way, lack of funds isn't the only reason some people don't have cable or satellite TV.

Re:The REAL cost of delaying the switch.

[scotts13]

Actually, you CAN get that many channels and more for under $25/month from any cable provider; the feds require it. But they don't require the cable operator to tell you, you have to ask. Oh, and you don't get to pick the channels any more than anyone else does. It's a "basic tier".

Re:The REAL cost of delaying the switch.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bestbuy is advertising the 3 ways to get DTV:

1. Buy a new HDTV
2. Subscribe to Cable/Satellite
3. Buy a converter box

Re:The REAL cost of delaying the switch.

[spinkham]

I'd be interested to know how many people are using broadcast alone, and don;t have cable and satellite. In my area, it seems most everyone how owns property, no matter their financial situation, has cable or satellite. That being said, we don't, but do use a custom MythTV setup w/ HDTV receivers, Hulu, and Netflix, so we're kind of oddballs that way.

Re:The REAL cost of delaying the switch.

[porcupine8]

The basic tier usually sucks, though. It's usually a dozen news and sports channels, a handful of shopping channels, and one or two channels I'd actually watch. Not worth any amount per month. A la carte cable is pretty much the only thing I'd be willing to pay for, unless someone's basic tier *happened* to include at least ten channels I'd watch. But they never do, because otherwise no one would pay for the big package.

Re:The REAL cost of delaying the switch.

[j303045]

There's anecdotal evidence that some people are dropping their cable or satellite service after seeing the quality of OTA digital broadcasts.

I am one of those people, though only partly due to the excellent picture quality. We tried satellite, but were never entirely satisfied with the QOS. My wife particularly hated the large tuners and additional cabling required, so we went back to our local cable company (think the Brown Crescent of Quality). I was unhappy with their Internet service and traffic throttling practices, not to mention HD compression, horrible customer service, ridiculously inflated bills, and lack of choice in content selection -- 120 channels, and nothing on.

Beginning last October, I began educating myself about digital OTA television. I applied for, and received, two DTV coupons. I researched outdoor antennas and found several excellent websites that helped locate broadcast towers within 50 miles of our home, which in turn indicated what antenna would work best. Armed with this information, I purchased and erected the ~$100 antenna on our roof, and spent ~$125 on four Apex converter boxes (two with the coupons, two at full price.)

While we no longer have 1080i on the one television that will support it (the boxes that are coupon qualified are restricted to S-video max) the picture quality is excellent, and we have no monthly TV bill. We're currently receiving 15 channels, and expect a few more to come online after the switch. I have documented the process and hardware for friends and family, and know of at least two who are doing the same thing now, for pretty much the same reasons that we did. If it weren't for the DTV switch, we would have continued to grumble along paying a cable bill and receiving lousy service.

Re:The REAL cost of delaying the switch.

[GWBasic]

Seriously...I've asked as many low-income people I know or run into, and I've yet to find ANYbody that gets their TV through rabbit ears or a roof antenna.

That depends on where you live. I live in San Francisco, a couple of miles away from the towers. Reception is great in the city. For retirees who need to control costs, cable television is simply a waste of money.

When my retired neighbor showed me his converter box, I was SHOCKED. The quality of TV and channel selection that he was getting from a set of rabbit ears was comparable to what I had on cable TV in the 80's.

Needless to say, I bought a TV adapter for my computer and canceled cable TV. Now I save myself $80 a month!

Re:The REAL cost of delaying the switch.

[cdrguru]

Lots and lots of them. Quite a few without any tuner at all, but unless you were spending plenty for a high-end LCD or plasma TV you quite likely got an ordinary cable-ready tuner that doesn't work with digital signals. Until around 2006 that is.

Yup, lots of TVs going to be trashed soon. I wonder if it is cheap way to pick up LCD monitors for computers from all these that don't have digital OTA capabilities?

Re:The REAL cost of delaying the switch.

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in Sweden it's offered, at least to some extent and all depending on the provider in question. It's called "8 favourites" by the biggest cable company. One of their competitors on cable offers 8 favourites as well and even subscriptions of either 4 or 6 favourite channels. The price is sub 25 dollars, yes. Something like 18 bucks actually.

But I'm not saying it's worth the money, though. We have a ton of reruns and digital cable is extremely immature today because not enough viewers have yet been interested in upgrading from analog cable to digital cable. Cable HDTV has helped to bring over new customers to digital television, but it's still going VEEEERY slow.

Re:The REAL cost of delaying the switch.

[Rich0]

A ten year delay?

Or was it scheduled for delivery in November and got pushed out two months?

Delays in coupons... Delays in transmitter deliveries...

Sounds like a friend's ex-husband. He is ALWAYS late bringing the kids home, and he always as a good excuse as to why it isn't his fault. Fine, well perhaps now the station owner will have a good excuse as to why his income disappeared for a few weeks.

When a switchover is planned a decade in advance there are NO execused when people aren't ready in time. And it isn't like we're talking about hospitals here - nobody is going to starve or drop dead because their TV is out for a week or HEAVEN FORBID they have to buy a $40 converter without a government subsidy. In the UK they'd need to pay more than that annually to legally watch TV at all.

Re:The REAL cost of delaying the switch.

[LurkerXXX]

Yeah, because it would have been absolutely freaking brilliant to have all the equipment delivered a decade ago. Having everything in place about 8 years before converter boxes were readily available would have been the smart move. It's not like electronics get cheaper over time or anything. (That's sarcasm in case you missed it)

If you'd like to complain they should have been 12 months ahead of the curve I might have taken your response seriously. This is just stupid.

As far as the hospital analogy goes, exactly. If they delay a few weeks it's no big deal. Idiots shouldn't get their panties in a bunch if a station is a few weeks late switching. There is no reason to bother having the TV out for a week. Is someone going to drop dead if they keep broadcasting on the old analog channel and temporary digital channel another few weeks? No. Delaying the switch a few weeks is fine.

It won't matter how long it's delayed.

[crawdad62]

You could delay the transition and it won't matter there's still going to be people that are caught unprepared. That's just human nature.

The only thing this adds to the situation is more confusion.

Just more cleanChicago politics coming to DC

[Anonymous Coward]

What? Chicago isn't known for clean politics?

Say it ain't so!

They should switch off analog today.

[alflauren]

It might create enough productivity in the economy that we don't need the bloated stimulus bill.

Re:They should switch off analog today.

[Idiomatick]

The suicide and murder rate would jump by 100x atleast within 6hours.

Re:They should switch off analog today.

[Anonymous Coward]

hate to be cold about the suicides, but if the only thing living for is TV, then maybe they are better off dead

For the people out in the boondocks

[velcroman270]

We are "prepared" for this switch over...at first we bought the stupid converter boxes...didnt work...we lost most of our channels. So the we got an new HDTVS (for other reasons *coughxbox360cough*) and still couldn't get our fav channels. We did some research and being 60 miles away for the transmission towers kinda kills the beauty of DTV. Some where in between us and the tower...is ONE TREE...kills most of the signals. The other thing is that the stations aren't transmitting at the power needed to make DTV available to everyone. Fox 26 here in the Houston has the highest broadcasting power something like 26000 MHZ (?) while the rest are at like 200. Unless we switch to satellite, we wont be watching LOST very much more...

Re:For the people out in the boondocks

[my $anity 0]

I'm pretty sure LOST is all on the internet. A friend told me about it.

Re:For the people out in the boondocks

[isdnip]

Some of the digital stations aren't yet at full power. But you might need an outdoor antenna. One tree doesn't usually do that much harm to TV signals (below 700 MHz).

The FCC's "map book" shows that the Houston DTV stations will have comparable, but not identical, coverage.
http://www.fcc.gov/dtv/markets/

Re:For the people out in the boondocks

[artor3]

Yeah, DTV is absolutely terrible quality compared to analog for anyone who lives more than a couple dozen miles from the tower. With analog, if the signal was weak, you got some white noise over the picture and sound, but it was still totally watchable. With DTV, all you get is a black screen. It is utterly unusable. As soon as the switch happens, I won't be able to watch my local news ever again. *sigh*

Re:For the people out in the boondocks

[velcroman270]

all ready did all of that man..and i agree its probably a grain dryer or something of that nature...this is even with the outdoor antenna...properly pointed (a member of my family is a land surveyor so he helped us point it in the right direction)....i quote family guy "the freaking FCC" its one of those govt things where it just has to say it on paper...not acutally work...wait..thats more like a school district. i will believe that map when i see it...

Re:For the people out in the boondocks

[camperslo]

Looking at the FCC TV database, it seems Houston has or will have a number of DTV stations operating at effective power at or near a million Watts, and with pretty fair effective antenna height (500 meters or so). Coverage looks pretty good compared to what many see in more mountainous areas.

Coverage also depends much on terrain. You can get a pretty good idea what to expect from the tvfool coverage maps which take terrain into account. If you're out in the blue it takes more work...

I looked at a couple of the Houston signals and its seems they're generally really strong out to about 50 miles.
You didn't say what kind of installation you have at 60 miles. A decent roof-mounted antenna with a preamp at the antenna (remotely powered) and modern low-loss coax cable will probably work well.
It is important that the antenna be properly aimed. I've had good results with the mast-mounted preamp Radio Shack sells (about $60, about double what I paid for a medium sized antenna).
Increasing antenna height can help, especially when there is clutter nearby.
Some indoor preamps I've tried made matters worse instead of better. (most were around $20). They had both poor gain and were more prone to overload problems. The Radio Shack outdoor preamp has a gain adjustment on the indoor power supply. It is easiest to check reception on analog signals while adjusting the gain. If there is an overload problem from strong signals nearby, the best reception will be below the maximum gain setting. Equipment is more prone to signal overload near transmitters and when there are many signals nearby. Interference is far easier to spot on the analog signals.

Re:For the people out in the boondocks

[velcroman270]

well we have a decent antenna mounted about 20 feet up in the air connected to low-loss coax...i havent thought of a preamp...i will have to go take a look at that one...we have aimed the antenna right using a air plane compass and the coordinates we got from the fcc database (i just helped so i really dont know exactly where we got the coordinates) at about 60 miles we get most of the channels except for ABC 13 and PBS 8...which is odd..becuase they are all at the same location...

Re:For the people out in the boondocks

[Detritus]

The FCC computer models for coverage assume that the receiving antenna is on a 30' mast. Rabbit ears are not going to work in fringe areas.

Re:For the people out in the boondocks

[camperslo]

well we have a decent antenna mounted about 20 feet up in the air connected to low-loss coax...i havent thought of a preamp...i will have to go take a look at that one...we have aimed the antenna right using a air plane compass and the coordinates we got from the fcc database (i just helped so i really dont know exactly where we got the coordinates) at about 60 miles we get most of the channels except for ABC 13 and PBS 8...which is odd..becuase they are all at the same location...

It looks like the PBS 8 KUHT station is temporarily doing digital on channel 9 (will still would show up as 8 dot whatever on a digital tv), with a CP (construction permit) to go back to channel 8 with more power than they have on 9 when the analog gets turned off.
The ABC 13 KTRK station appears to be licensed with a bunch of power for digital on channel 32, but it too looks temporary since there is a construction permit for digital on 13. Since 32 appears to be only temporary for them, they might have decided not to invest in as powerful of a transmitter as they were licensed for. Some of the things in the FCC database aren't actually operating at all or as licensed yet, and there may be extra entries for stations if they're making more changes or just changing their minds on what to go with. Stations that are already on the digital channel they'll use are much more likely to be running full power. (Even then some can't yet because of stations that have not shut down or moved from the same channel yet being vulnerable to interference in other cities... it's a bit complicated)

Many viewers are using UHF-specific antennas for DTV. Most UHF specific antennas outperform the UHF section of combined UHF/VHF antennas. Since the stations you are having trouble with appear to be destined to be digital on VHF, you might not have a suitable antenna.
A UHF/VHF splitter or a two set splitter can be hooked up backwards to combined the output of two different antennas to one cable if needed. (make sure anything outside is weatherproof).
They're using less power on VHF, but since VHF antennas have to be bigger (to be a certain fraction of a wavelength) they're capturing energy over a bigger area and get more signal.

(a 13 db gain antenna at UHF takes up a smaller wedge of the sky than the same gain antenna at VHF)
VHF is less affected by terrain and cable losses than UHF. To help compensate for different conditions at higher frequencies, the FCC maximum power limits for analog were set at 100,000 Watts on channels 2-6, 316,000 on 7-13, and 5 million on UHF. (some of the extra on UHF was also to allow for lower performance tuners... things have improved since the early days of UHF tv).
In theory a digital signal doesn't have to be as far above the background noise to look perfect, so less power should work. But I've seen people watch viewable VHF analog signals beyond the purple areas of the coverage maps. Stations that moved to digital on UHF will almost certainly not reach those people. It seems most of the remaining VHF stations will be on channels 7-13, probably because antennas are smaller than for 2-6, and because in the stronger areas UHF antennas may still pick up enough on 7-13 to work. Some companies used to sell antennas made specifically for 7-13. It'll be interesting to see if UHF antennas optimized for 14-51 appear. There's no need for the shorter elements to support up to 69 (or up to 83 in the pre-cell-phone era).

You might want to wait until after the transition to work on those two stations.
If you'd like to laugh at what happens to coverage in more mountainous areas, try looking at something like KCOY in tvfool...

A waste of effort.

[Vellmont]

It just kills me that the Obama administration has chosen this issue to be one to focus on. Television? I watch it, I don't have a problem with it. I'm not one of those people who triumphantly claim they don't watch television as if it makes them smarter.

But let's get real here. Television just isn't all that important, especially compared to say... health care, the economy, energy, torture, "the terrorists", North Korea, Putin, Russia, global warming, the housing crisis, Israel/Palestinian, New Orleans, Iraq, Afghanistan, Melamine, Salmonella, Gitmo, domestic spying, illegal immigration, crumbling infra-structure, and a host of other issues I'd rather just forget about. Each of those expands into a whole different set of problems, and they all interact with one another.

But.. the television switchover that's been going on in some fashion for the last 10 years is one of the FIRST issues the administration has chosen to take on. Why? I have my suspicions, mostly about Democrats being in bed with Big Content (hey, whenever you refer to Big it's bad.. right?).

The justification is just bizarre. The poor and technically inept might be without TV for a little while. I know around here we like to brow-beat anyone that's "stupid", or a technophile as if they deserve what they get. I'm not a big believer in that, but I am a believer in priorities. The people who television is THAT important to have gotten a converter. The people remaining might just have to go without for a while until they decide it's a priority. But yet this whole thing gets sold to us like it's an essential element to survival. Just yesterday I saw an ad from a local broadcaster urging people to "help their neighbors" in making sure they can get the digital broadcast, as if a hurricane has torn down houses, or a snowstorm has buried everyone in snow. This isn't a disaster... It's just television.

Re:A waste of effort.

[ducomputergeek]

But Television is today's form of circuses. It keeps the general unwashed masses happy, entertained, and more worried about what happened on Idol as apposed to people worrying or taking an interest in health care, the economy, energy, torture, "the terrorists", North Korea, Putin, Russia, global warming et. al.

 

Re:A waste of effort.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why waste your effort blaming the Obama administration for focusing on an issue that was left on their plate. The transition deadline was set before Obama was elected president and now they are just having to deal with the deadline. While you may have a point that Television isn't as critical as some of the other issues you listed, it is conceivable that the administration can do more than one thing at a time. One could also point out that a lot of people get their news from TV so to them it is important. I don't think they should delay the transition for the simple reason that there's going to be pain regardless and delays won't eliminate that. I also like the dig you threw in about Democrats. As if only democrats are behind this issue.

Re:A waste of effort.

[stormguard2099]

A lot of people depend on tv for news so in a disaster it could be crucial information, though I will point out that there's radio as well in such an incident. But more relevant to the everyday, the tv is a source of news in the home and considering that most people are more visually oriented, tv is a better medium than the radio for most information.

And yes, there do exist places where there is no broadband and with the recession, some newspapers have decided to cut off delivery service so that people can't even get a deadtree newspaper in my town anymore. /rant

Re:A waste of effort.

[GeckoAddict]

health care, the economy, energy, torture, "the terrorists", North Korea, Putin, Russia, global warming, the housing crisis, Israel/Palestinian, New Orleans, Iraq, Afghanistan, Melamine, Salmonella, Gitmo, domestic spying, illegal immigration, crumbling infra-structure, and a host of other issues I'd rather just forget about.

The problem of course being that television affects many millions of Americans every day, while torture and Putin don't really affect anything that happens in a normal day for those same people.

Re:A waste of effort.

[theodicey]

How is "The Senate" = "The Obama Administration"?

Obama is doing almost nothing about this bill, although I don't think he would veto it.

Individual Representatives and Senators, who are very concerned with elderly people who have nothing to do but watch TV and vote, are driving pretty much the whole thing.

Re:A waste of effort.

[pauljlucas]

It just kills me that the Obama administration has chosen this issue to be one to focus on.

Just because Obama supports the delay doesn't mean it's either his or his administration's focus.

Re:A waste of effort.

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama is doing almost nothing about this bill, although I don't think he would veto it.

President-elect Barack Obama's transition team sent a second letter to Capitol Hill today to re-enforce the push to postpone the Feb. 17 date of the nation's digital transition.
-Washington Post

Michael Copps, a Democrat appointed acting chairman last week by U.S. President Barack Obama, ripped into digital-television transition efforts under his predecessor, Republican Kevin Martin.
-PCWorld

Or just google it yourself.

More of my taxpayer dollars wasted on useless legislation when there are far more important things to worry about.

Re:A waste of effort.

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama already said publicly, shortly before he took office, that he supports the delay and would sign the bill.

How many congressmen are going along with this to get in Obama's good graces (the old "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" deal)?

Re:A waste of effort.

[Idiomatick]

Have you looked at what obama has spent his time with each day since getting in power? Hes made front page news with something he was changing almost every day....

Re:A waste of effort.

[noidentity]

Television? I watch it, I don't have a problem with it. I'm not one of those people who triumphantly claim they don't watch television as if it makes them smarter.

Yes, but you are one of those people who claims that he doesn't triumphantly claim that he doesn't watch television as if it makes him smarter.

Re:A waste of effort.

[Culture20]

It just kills me that the Obama administration has chosen this issue to be one to focus on. Television? [...] But let's get real here. Television just isn't all that important,

If The People can't see what The Media wants them to see, then the push by The Media to get into Obama elected would be wasted. And no, I didn't vote for McCain or Barr; I just objectively agree that there was one-sided coverage.

Re:A waste of effort.

[Vellmont]

it is conceivable that the administration can do more than one thing at a time.

They can. But any administration has a limited amount of things they can do. With ALL the issues I just listed, can you really say they can address all of them before we look at the TV thing? There's a limited amount of political capital to spend for any politician. Spending it on something so trivial is stupid and wasteful.

One could also point out that a lot of people get their news from TV so to them it is important.

That's why I mentioned priorities. Anyone that hasn't gotten the damn thing by NOW doesn't see it as a priority. Waiting a few months isn't going to solve that problem. The only way you'll solve it is if the TV doesn't work one day, and maybe then they'll have to go buy a box.

Believe it or not.. there was life before television. There may even be people that survive just fine without a television.

I also like the dig you threw in about Democrats. As if only democrats are behind this issue.

It's not, but it's largely driven by Democrats. The senate voted for it 100%, but the votes against it in the house came from the Republicans, and was lead by a Republican (Joe Barton from TX). This is probably the first thing I can remember that the Republican party has taken leadership in that I've agreed with.

Re:A waste of effort.

[Anonymous Coward]

The issues you list are also trendy topics designed to distract and serve as material for conversation. They may have a core of relevance, but all involve red herrings, false premises, and empty concepts. That's why they are entertaining: because resolution will never be possible, the discussion is infinite, and we will never have to do anything.

Re:A waste of effort.

[couchslug]

Without circuses the unwashed masses would still be morons. They'd merely invent their own entertainment.

The system doesn't make people stupid.

It caters to their stupidity because they make it profitable to humor them.

What is the problem?

[gnasher719]

Can someone explain for non US residents what the problem is? In the UK, I can buy a digital receiver for £20 in my local supermarket, which plugs into any TV with a SCART socket (any newer TV with HDMI really ought to have a digital receiver built-int). For a bit more, you get a digital receiver with harddisk recorder. Quality is close to DVD, five times more programs available, so there is no need for subsidies. The only problem is when your reception is bad, because the digital TV quality in that case is either perfect or rubbish, nothing in between.

Re:What is the problem?

[PeeAitchPee]

Our big friendly goverment decided to give away the boxes you reference, FOR FREE. They did this by issuing coupons worth $50 or so IIRC. Like most things given away by the government for free, lots of people who didn't need them got two or three of these boxes and stuck them on a shelf in their garage, where they're still collecting dust. Of course, the coupons ran out, and now some in our congress are claiming that the program was underfunded. It's a typical Washington clusterfuck -- exactly the sort of thing that happens when bureaucrats decide there's a huge "problem" somewhere and its solution requires spending tens of millions of our tax dollars.

Re:What is the problem?

[mh1997]

Can someone explain for non US residents what the problem is?

The problem is that when Abraham Lincoln and Jesse Helms wrote the constitution, they made it a right for the American people to have television. Now, 350 years later, congress changed the way TV has always been delivered - from an anolog microsft tower in Denver to a newer more technologically advanced 60 watt digital station located in Southern Pennsylvania.

The confusion has resulted in NASCAR cancelling their season, resulting in billions of dollars in lost revenue for Bud Light (a subsidiary of the Coors Brewing Company located in South Africa).

I hope that helps.

Re:What is the problem?

[w9wi]

I would venture a guess what triggered this was problems in the DTV coupon program.

This program offers each household up to two coupons. (in the form of cards, similar to a debit card) Each coupon could be redeemed for US$40 off the price of a digital receiver. Digital receivers are selling for around US$60-65.

The coupon program has more or less run out of money. "more or less" because they're finding many, many coupons are being ordered but never redeemed. They do have an expiration period. (90 days) I suppose the theory is that if the analog shutdown is delayed, more unused coupons will expire and more money will be available to issue more coupons and more viewers can use those coupons to get converted in time.

That said, most Americans are more than willing to pay more than $60 every month for cable or satellite service, it seems unlikely that a one time payment of $60 for a converter box is going to be a problem for most families.

(for those families for whom $60 is a problem, I have sympathy... although they really should have acted sooner...)

There is also some concern that viewers in some places are having trouble receiving all the channels they were getting in analog. Problem is, in many cases that's because:

The digital signals are suffering interference from analog transmitters.

Or, they're having to operate on reduced power to avoid interfering with analog service.

Or, the station plans to use its current analog antenna for its permanent digital service -- is currently on a lower interim antenna -- and of course cannot switch to full power until it can turn its analog transmitter off.

Of course delaying the analog shutdown only delays the delivery of a full digital signal to these viewers!

Re:What is the problem?

[mpe]

I would venture a guess what triggered this was problems in the DTV coupon program.
This program offers each household up to two coupons. (in the form of cards, similar to a debit card) Each coupon could be redeemed for US$40 off the price of a digital receiver. Digital receivers are selling for around US$60-65.

Another thing you can expect is that the absolute minimum price of such a unit is that value of the coupon. Which may have kept the price artificially high in the US. In places without such "assistance" the price of converter boxes doppped once digital TV signals were available to stimulate demand. Another thing which makes DTV boxes cheaper in Europe is that TVs have for a long time had inputs for composite video, even RGB auxillary inputs. With the SCART/Péritel connector being present on just about everything less than 20 years old. Do all US boxes require an NTSC encoder and a modulator?

Re:What is the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only the facts have been changed to protect the innocent. :)

Re:What is the problem?

[/dev/trash]

the US is huge. And rural Americans need not just a convertor box but a big ass antenna, that rotates. Do you need those in the UK?

Re:What is the problem?

[timeOday]

Actually they're not free, and they're not your tax dollars.

They're not free because even with the coupon, you still have to pay $15 or so to get a box, so I suspect many "unneeded" coupons will never be redeemed.

And they're not your tax dollars because the proceeds for the program came from the sale of the reclaimed RF spectrum.

Re:What is the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Duh!

Re:What is the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Doubtful. IF they bought the boxes, they bought them for tvs they actually had. Like me I ordered 2 coupons, only used one. The other expired and the money went back into the program.

Re:What is the problem?

[ion.simon.c]

*sigh*

You can pick up the DTV signal on the same antenna that you use for the current TV signal.

Re:What is the problem?

[cdrguru]

Maybe. If you live in a big city. I have a vacation home in the northern part of lower Michigan and we are going from 4.5 stations to 1. Maybe if the broadcast power of some of the others is increased on the 17th things might change, but I doubt it. We are already in a "fringe area" and have a rooftop antenna with about a 7 foot mast and a rotator. Yes, we tried a converter box and that is how we know all about the one station that works.

We already have plans to move to cable, because it is likely the only way to get more than one station.

Anyone that believes TV stations can reverse course in less than three weeks and not unplug analog broadcasting is just kidding themselves. This is way, way too late. It might be OK for the station that is run by two guys and a girlfriend. Anyone, even out in rural Michigan, has made enough plans already that it is going to be very tough to cancel them and hold on to analog broadcast.

But it will look nice when Congress can say "they tried".

Re:What is the problem?

[/dev/trash]

I invite you over to my apartment then. before I got cable I was able to get th three locals via a very crappy pair of rabbit ears. Tried to get just ONE station with the antenna andthe digital box, and NOTHING.

My parents, tehy have an outdoor antenna, rotates and all that. They can get 2/5 local channels via analog. With the box? ZERO.

Now if I lived in center city Philly I bet I'd be a-ok. But I do not. So to truly solve this issue Congress needs to send out vouchers for big ass antennas for the people who live outside the 20 miles of great digital reception.

Re:What is the problem?

[ion.simon.c]

From what I understand, everyone needs to wait till the analog transmitters are powered down, and the DTV transmitters are at full power and -in some cases- their proper frequencies.

Re:What is the problem?

[ion.simon.c]

Please write back with a situation report when the DTV stations are at full power. If these threads are locked, you can reach me at my slashdot username on gmail's server.

Re:What is the problem?

[/dev/trash]

I guess we'll see in 2 weeks,

colossal failure of broadcast media

[pikine]

I wonder why don't TV stations show an overlay banner saying "This station is available on digital channel ##. The analog channel will be discontinued at DATE. Please contact your local electronics store for how to receive digital broadcast."

Having people who watch analog TV suddenly go blank without knowing they should switch to digital, that is the colossal failure of broadcast media that can't disseminate information to their audience.

Re:colossal failure of broadcast media

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

The stations around here have all been covering the changeover as news stories for months now, including explaining what to do to be able to keep watching. I assume it's the same elsewhere.

Overlay banners are annoying. Especially if they would run 24x7

Re:colossal failure of broadcast media

[pikine]

I know people who never watch the news on TV, only their favorite shows. The overlay banners will only be shown on analog channel, so while annoying, I think this is a fair thing to do. Once you take action, the annoyance goes away.

Re:colossal failure of broadcast media

[sherriw]

No, no, they can't do that, they're too busy showing ads for Pepsi or the next reality show or their own translucent logo in the lower right corner of the broadcasts. There's no room for anything that's actually helpful.

Re:colossal failure of broadcast media

[Anonymous Coward]

And when I watch American channels, they have a commercial on it every other break or so. Actual informative commercials too, which is frightening in itself.

Re:colossal failure of broadcast media

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder why don't TV stations show an overlay banner saying "This station is available on digital channel ##. The analog channel will be discontinued at DATE. Please contact your local electronics store for how to receive digital broadcast."

Having people who watch analog TV suddenly go blank without knowing they should switch to digital, that is the colossal failure of broadcast media that can't disseminate information to their audience.

They *do*. They *have been* for past however many months.

Re:colossal failure of broadcast media

[triffid_98]

No, no, they can't do that. They used to do that, but now instead of a translucent logo in the lower right corner we have an animated graphic filling up 1/8 of the screen, with accompanying sound overlays. I particularly enjoy the full-throated exhaust notes of Harley drag pipes (Season 5 of American Chopper) as I'm trying to follow interpersonal dialog halfway into a 3 hour movie. Fuck you TNT.

No, no, they can't do that, they're too busy showing ads for Pepsi or the next reality show or their own translucent logo in the lower right corner of the broadcasts. There's no room for anything that's actually helpful.

Re:colossal failure of broadcast media

[Anonymous Coward]

All of the stations in my area have been running PSA's like crazy, showing countdowns on the local news and running "tests" for people to see if they are on digital or analog. It is time to just get it done. Save the TV stations some money from not having to run two transmitters.

What is still confusing is that the low power translators, usually in rural areas where there is a lot more people using antennas, will still be running analog for a while longer.

Re:colossal failure of broadcast media

[spinkham]

Because they don't need to....

What is now Channel 4 stays labeled as channel 4.1-x when the change over occurs, no matter what the actual broadcast frequency is.

The broadcast channels here have been giving clear instructions as commercials and news stories for a year now, and one of the local channels is even giving out free quality Channelmaster UHF+VHF HI antennas if you write and ask for them.

The stations in my area (Raleigh, NC) couldn't possibly have done more to educate or get people ready. If you're not ready, at least in this area, it's your own dumb fault.

Re:colossal failure of broadcast media

[stars_are_number_1]

The stations around here have all been covering the changeover as news stories for months now, including explaining what to do to be able to keep watching. I assume it's the same elsewhere.

Overlay banners are annoying. Especially if they would run 24x7

Why not do this for a week, or three days? It seems it would be in the interest of the local station, to insure that their viewers know what steps they must take to see the station. Or, maybe have a repeating 20 minute informercial that actually walks through the steps of making the transition?

Re:colossal failure of broadcast media

[andrewd18]

In Milwaukee, WI, most of the analog channels have been running banners and commercials for weeks.

Cold turkey.

[Anonymous Coward]

As a viewer I mean.
Haven't had TV in my house since 2004. The internet's good, as are video games, and every show I'd want to see comes out on DVD rentals anyway.

The old bill allowed analogs off early too.

[w9wi]

The original bill didn't require analog stations to stay on until June either.

(if the link breaks, try this PDF link)

See Sec. 4, paragraph (a) which states in part: "Nothing in this Act is intended to prevent a licensee of a television broadcast station from terminating the broadcasting of such station's analog television signal (and continuing to broadcast exclusively in the digital television service) prior to the date established by law under section 3002(b) of the Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005 for termination of all licenses for full-power television stations in the analog television service (as amended by section 2 of this Act) so long as such prior termination is conducted in accordance with the Federal Communications Commission's requirements in effect on the date of enactment of this Act,.."

(typical government wordiness)

What it means is that before this bill was introduced, stations could sign off their analogs before Feb. 17th upon giving 30 days notice to the FCC and the viewers. Should the bill pass into law, paragraph (a) ensures they can still sign off before June 12th, again provided they give 30 days notice.

Several hundred stations have already given such notice. Including most of the major-network affiliates in Nashville, New Orleans, and Wichita among other cities.

The proposed new bill (PDF version) contains the same paragraph.

Re:The old bill allowed analogs off early too.

[Culture20]

Except they probably have to re-announce termination when this becomes law, so they can't switch over on the 17th.

Re:The old bill allowed analogs off early too.

[w9wi]

You have to announce termination 30 days in advance.

The grey area, as I see it, is that the rules are changing in midstream. Today, if you plan to go off on 2/17, you don't need to notify anyone -- your analog license is automatically canceled on 2/18.

After this bill is enacted (presumably sometime next week) you have to give 30 days' notice.

But there are fewer than 30 days before 2/17.

Several hundred stations have already given notice of their intent to shut down their analogs on schedule, on the 17th. Most did not give notice 30 days in advance though - as a delay wasn't on the table that early. There was no reason to believe any further action would be required of stations which wished to go off in February.

I have to presume the FCC will relax the notice requirement for those stations that begin notification promptly (within a day or two) of the enactment of this bill.

Re:The old bill allowed analogs off early too.

[powerlord]

I have to presume the FCC will relax the notice requirement for those stations that begin notification promptly (within a day or two) of the enactment of this bill.

Assuming the bill actually passes.

Don't forget, this is the second bill the Senate has passed. The House still has to pass one of their own. Assuming no major changes are needed to reconcile the two versions of the bill (Senate/House), the President still has to sign it.

Not saying it won't happen before the 17th (16 days and counting), but I'd like to think that it might NOT pass, and things would go as planned (despite all the wasted effort, and expense on the part of Congress).

I'm beginning if this whole thing isn't one big misdirection on the part of Congress, so that if things don't go smoothly on the 17th, they can appeal to their voters and say "we tried to get more time for a smoother transition, its not my fault, please re-elect me."

Re:The old bill allowed analogs off early too.

[stars_are_number_1]

The original bill didn't require analog stations to stay on until June either.

(if the link breaks, try this PDF link)

See Sec. 4, paragraph (a) which states in part: "Nothing in this Act is intended to prevent a licensee of a television broadcast station from terminating the broadcasting of such station's analog television signal (and continuing to broadcast exclusively in the digital television service) prior to the date established by law under section 3002(b) of the Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005 for termination of all licenses for full-power television stations in the analog television service (as amended by section 2 of this Act) so long as such prior termination is conducted in accordance with the Federal Communications Commission's requirements in effect on the date of enactment of this Act,.."

(typical government wordiness)

What it means is that before this bill was introduced, stations could sign off their analogs before Feb. 17th upon giving 30 days notice to the FCC and the viewers. Should the bill pass into law, paragraph (a) ensures they can still sign off before June 12th, again provided they give 30 days notice.

Several hundred stations have already given such notice. Including most of the major-network affiliates in Nashville, New Orleans, and Wichita among other cities.

The proposed new bill (PDF version) contains the same paragraph.

Is there a list of stations that have given their switch notice?

Bunch of Tubes!

[Anonymous Coward]

This only goes to show that Ted Stevens was not the only clueless member of Congress. Those old people are going to be confused beyond description if a "phased" transition is implemented. You would need to be living in a cave on Mars not to know about the transition, and if you can't come up with $40 to buy a box, or wait to get a coupon, then you have MUCH bigger problems than a dark TV.

The Other White Meat...

[tunapez]

The Pork was lacking, so a message was sent and the bill failed. Hopefully the lobbyists and the authors of the next version get it right and grease all the palms sufficiently next time. There is NO way the US Guv is going to unplug a couple million baby-sitters and chance widespread formation of individual thoughts and consternation. Ain't gonna happen.

Simple Equation

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a simple equation: politicians + technology = clusterfuck

Get on with it for god's sake...flip the switch and deal with the fallout

Fear

[camperdave]

it's fear.

Maybe you're right, but the wrong way around. There is huge money being made by certain parties through fear. Guns are being sold because of fear. Security checkpoints are being installed because of fear. People are being kept in power because of fear. But how can you maintain that fear when the propaganda machinery can't speak to the people? How can the US Military keep their big fat war budget going if Joe Sixpack loses the fear that Mohammed Al Qaeda is going to repossess his motor home? What's going to happen when half the country isn't being fed a diet of fear and pessimism? What's going to happen when the US snaps out of its TV induced hypnosis? It would be interesting to find out.

February 17 or bust.

[Anonymous Coward]

Enough already. The deadline is February 17 and that should be that. Hopefully the House will show better sense than the Senate and kill this bill as well.

This is bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

The Obama administration and the Democrats, the party of technology and net neutrality and open source, is doing this to help out their tv station buddies and cronies in certain telcoms. Trust a Democrat to be a corrupt crook. But they sure talk a good game, don't they?

Back taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

...Oh by the way, anyone notice that Tom Daschle is the second Obama cabinet nominee who had to pay backtaxes just before he was nominated? $100,000! That's bound to be a record! Remember that when you're filling out your 1040 and thinking about how Obama and the Dems are going to bail us out.

the networks seem to be pushing for it

[Trepidity]

While the local channels are likely to face technical problems by a delay, the networks themselves seem to be part of the group lobbying for a delay, hoping the switchover can take place after their seasons end.

No digital TV conversion ever...

[Simonetta]

There should be No digital TV conversion ever... Total techno-blasphemy for me to say this in SlashdotLand, but it is never-the-less true.

The 20th-century is over. This means that the idea that there is always going to be a new exciting technical innovation that should be implemented as soon as possible is outdated. We need to keep the technology that works, regardless of how old or inefficient that it is.

The 21st-century, which we are on the verge of entering, will be categorized by rapid transformation in some technical areas and very slow change in other areas. Analog TV works. It reaches everyone. It is the only mass medium that reaches everyone. It should not be abandoned in order to give the spectrum away to various corporations. These are public airwaves; public spectrum.

I am beginning to suspect that the conversion to digital TV from NTSC will never happen. As the economy continues to collapse and more ethnic groups and larger numbers of people enter the poverty class, it will become less likely that the government will allow this transformation to occur. In June the deadline for conversion will be pushed back again. Eventually the Digital TV conversion, like the space program, will be abandoned and forgotten.

Except among the Slashdot crowd. Don't mod me down to minus a million for saying this. Respect free speech that includes opinions that differ from yours. This is what makes the USA great, not its technology.

Re:No digital TV conversion ever...

[Ironchew]

Agreed. This switch away from NTSC has "new revenue stream" written all over it. Solutions to problems people currently face with the digital switch? "Buy this, buy that." Seriously, who can repair digital electronics nearly as easily as the analog counterparts? You can't order a replacement ATSC tuner for your TV model. Cash in the $$$ and get a converter box that you'll have to plug into another power socket. Even the signal is flaky, so you need to buy a "smart antenna". HDTV apparently wasn't compelling enough to spend thousands of dollars on, so the TV manufacturers wanted help from the government to speed obsolesence along.
Let's hope they never shut down analog radio broadcasts. I like making radios.

Re:No digital TV conversion ever...

[jejones]

"Seriously, who can repair digital electronics nearly as easily as the analog counterparts?"

Nobody, but how much does that have to do with current NTSC TV technology? I expect that if you open up a recent NTSC TV, you'll see ICs and surface mount technology used as much as possible, and relatively few things that are don't cost more to repair than to replace.

Re:No digital TV conversion ever...

[dour power]

How did this post get modded as "Insightful?" It's loaded with misinformation and displays a keen lack of insight. A troll, perhaps?

There should be No digital TV conversion ever... Total techno-blasphemy for me to say this in SlashdotLand, but it is never-the-less true.

It is nevertheless your opinion.

The 21st-century, which we are on the verge of entering

Been asleep for a while? We passed the verge nearly a decade ago.

Analog TV works. It reaches everyone. It is the only mass medium that reaches everyone.

Ever heard of radio?

Eventually the Digital TV conversion, like the space program, will be abandoned and forgotten.

Funny, I thought NASA was still in business. For starters, they've launched dozens of satellites and probes in the last few years, are scheduled to embark on a mission to repair the Hubble Space Telescope in the next few months, and they perform a considerable amount of research related to studying our own planet.

Respect free speech that includes opinions that differ from yours.

No problem, as long as it is informed and honest. Keep trying.

Re:No digital TV conversion ever...

[Anonymous Coward]

"It reaches everyone." -- FALSE, lots of people, even in cities don't receive desired analog channels.

Have you ever seen over-the-air HD? We've been a rabbit ears family for 28 years and switched to a HDTV eight months back. It's wonderful! More stations, better pictures, no complaints.

Furthermore, tv spectrum has been a vast waste. Analog stations waste MHz, plus require large guardbands on either side. Switching to digital opens up room for more applications. And the TV band is great spectrum, it cuts thru trees great, unlike other unlicensed spectrum. Expect to see some competition to the telecom monopolies using tv whitespaces.

Re:No digital TV conversion ever...

[commodore64_love]

That's true. The NTSC tuner in my VCR is the best tuner I've ever owned, and it's nothing more than an IC. Same applies to my new FM radio. This may be analog technology, but it's way too small to be repairable.

As for the shutdown, it won't be stopped. My local WGAL station manager has already made-up his mind he's ending analog on 2/17, Congress be damned. And for good reason: He's stuck with a shitty signal on channel 58 that barely covers a 30-mile circle. His station will be much better off after they switch to channel 8, with its long-distance VHF propagation that can reach distant communities ~80 miles away.

In addition, Congress will find itself sued by the companies that spent billions buying channels 52 to 69. NTSC has to end.

Re:No digital TV conversion ever...

[plonk420]

"It is the only mass medium that reaches everyone." uhm radio? i despise pretty much all American news except for NPR/BBC (and that's coming from a conservative! ...or at least conservative-raised)

The new version has an important difference

[Anonymous Coward]

... more pork for the naysayers?

ATSC is a great compromise

[Anonymous Coward]

I spent my transition budget buying an ATSC capture card to go into my fileserver, so I can now run MythTV and time-shift all the digital channels in the LA metro area.

Now I get the main networks and over a dozen PBS sub-channels. I put a small subscription fees into channel listings data for MythTV and skip the commercials as well, since I almost exclusively watch pre-recorded shows rather than live TV now.

If I ever subscribe for more media, it would be in one of the movie rental gimmicks such as netflix, and not in cable TV. There are already more trashy shows, reruns, and edutainment options via ATSC than I can bother to watch in a typical month. The only thing missing is frequent feature length movies.

Re:ATSC is a great compromise

[powerlord]

I agree.

We're in a similar situation in my house in the NYC AREA except replace MythTV by TiVo (its easier for my wife and requires zero maintenance from me).

We're switching to ATSC from cable (the HD TiVo's have built in dual tuners) since most of what we watch is available over the air (and since we almost exclusively time shift things to when WE want to watch them). For the few shows that are cable exclusive, a lot are available "on-line", or available on Amazon Video(directly integrated into HD TiVo) if we need to watch them "now" (or Sony's Video store if you have a PS3, or iTunes if you have an AppleTV, or MicroSoft's Video store if you have an XBox360).

Otherwise we can wait for the inevitable "season boxed set" and still save money over the course of the year, compared to the prices the cable companies are charging, for things we don't want/need and absolutely crappy service.

Funny note. For the longest time I went along as one more sheep just paying them and not worrying. THen they truly messed up service, and spent three months trying to fix it, often canceling appointments and generally doing everything wrong. If they had just managed to get things working efficiently I would have been happy, instead they got me looking at alternatives (and mentioning those alternatives whenever someone might be listening).

My $0.02

[Khan]

If they had set the cut off date to Feb 1st (Super Bowl Sunday), I bet all of those lazy ass idiots would have scrambled to get their boxes cut over. Now THAT would have generated a "stimulus package" without costing us any $$. Circuit City might even have remained in business, too. :-)

Re:My $0.02

[KingAlanI]

Funny or insightful?

Oh well, I just posted in the thread. :P

Re:My $0.02

[Anonymous Coward]

Those people most likely all have cable/satellite to begin with anyways.

Bad sign for other government action

[Anonymous Coward]

This has to have been the most publicized, well known mandated change that has ever been enacted by the US government. For the last year we've been bombarded with reminders, ads and discussion about this switch over on every known media. Even if you don't own a TV the odds are you know about the switch and yet, here we are.

You could write the date on the moon and some people still wouldn't be ready. (Oh, I only view the moon once every 5 years)

Worst case Scenario? You miss an episode of television. People talk about the poor and elderly like this is some massive injustice. It's really not. Anyone interested enough can, at worst case, get $40 together or, just don't watch TV.

Let's save the real injustice talk about the horrible health case system or, rising education expenses and forget all the BS about this TV switch over. Feb 17 here we come.

no live humans answering the phone

[zogger]

They will probably have an automatic recording set to answer the phones on that day, wouldn't you?

Re:no live humans answering the phone

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Viewers are stations livelihoods. Commercial networks can loose billions in single-week ratings. Local stations can loose millions in a ratings period.

Are you prepared for CHANNEL REASSIGNMENTS?

[dpbsmith]

The delay is justified, for two reasons. First, the coupon program was bungled, and running out of coupons shows that consumers are NOT clueless, MORE have responded than expected, because they are doing their best to prepare.

Second, as nearly as I can tell, nothing is being done to prepare consumers for the channel reassignments that will occur along with the analog shutdown. A significant number of stations will be changing their assigned frequency for digital transmission, and quite a lot of them will be changing from UHF to VHF.

At the very least you'll need to do a channel rescan. If I were a station like WHDH, the big Channel 7 NBC affiliate in Boston, I'd long since have posted directions on my website telling people about this and, if possible, telling them how to do a manual channel rescan. But they haven't.

Now, if you have a honkin' big old UHF/VHF rooftop antenna left over from the eighties, and you buy a converter box, you'll be fine. But if you bought one of those nice, compact, inexpensive "HDTV antenna" they've been selling for several years now, that, my friends, is a UHF antenna and you'll lose any digital stations that move to VHF. Maybe not, if they're powerful enough. But I don't know how on earth you can find out before the actual moment arrives.

And if you don't have a big honkin' VHF antenna on your roof already, February 17th is not a great time to be up there installing one.

So, check antennaweb.org for those channel reassignments, because I suspect some of the smug digerati are not quite as prepared for the transition as they think they are.

Re:Are you prepared for CHANNEL REASSIGNMENTS?

[evilviper]

Second, as nearly as I can tell, nothing is being done to prepare consumers for the channel reassignments that will occur along with the analog shutdown. A significant number of stations will be changing their assigned frequency for digital transmission, and quite a lot of them will be changing from UHF to VHF.

In all likelyhood, you'll get BETTER reception from a VHF station than a UHF station. The propagation is just so much better, and obstacles don't cause nearly so much signal loss.

But if you bought one of those nice, compact, inexpensive "HDTV antenna" they've been selling for several years now, that, my friends, is a UHF antenna and you'll lose any digital stations that move to VHF. Maybe not, if they're powerful enough. But I don't know how on earth you can find out before the actual moment arrives.

UHF antennas don't do a shabby job on VHF-hi. VHF-low is another story, but almost nobody, outside of Alaska, is going to get HDTV signals on VHF-low channels.

And it's TRIVIAL to find out how well your amplified "HDTV antenna" will do. Hook it up to an analog tuner (ie. your TV) and see if you can get the analog signals with the antenna.

I know my ancient, $1, loop antenna, does a GREAT job with VHF-hi. Though heavily staticy, I receive analog channels 7-13 just fine. Believe me, that's more than enough for a DTV signal lock. Meanwhile, the UHF/DTV counterparts to those analog stations don't happen to come in, with my indoor antenna, right now. So I fully expect to double my channel count when the switchover happens. Unfortunately congress is just kicking that further down the road, sticking me with a lousy channel selection (or being forced to buy a better antenna) for several more months now.

A moderation question.

[Kludge]

Hmm...
Normal... Troll... Funny... Informative...

Where's Luddite?

Just switch it off already

[jonwil]

Anyone that doesn't know its going to happen obviously doesn't watch enough TV that they will miss it when it goes away.

LIVE NEWS.

[Nirvelli]

Live News.
Storms, sports, political events, national disasters, etc.
The internet is good for a lot of things, but when it comes to live streaming, the internet just doesn't quite cut it for a lot of people. Yet.

Well, those are points...but let's logic this out

[zogger]

..seeing as how 99.99% of those calls on that day are going to be about the stupid switchover, you can A) have an automated response that goes through the whole spiel quickly and efficiently, then gives them an option at the end to talk to a human if they want to sit on hold, or B) let them sit on hold right off the bat with no explanation at all.

    Which will be more annoying to your clueless, cheap and probably not buying anything anyway viewers? The people who didn't switch because they couldn't get the coupons yet at least know what has happened and won't be calling, that leaves your lowest uncommon denominator left. And with that said, if they haven't switched, they *won't be* viewers until such a time as they get a converter box or a real digital tuner/tv, so you lose that demographic either way you handle it for that viewing time period, so your point is moot.. Either way you are going to annoy people (and most likely your crappiest customers anyway), so why not choose the way that at least gives them one more chance with the information they probably need and want? Answering live at the ring you just know the queue is going to back up to hours on hold anyway as the really clueless ones will want to argue at you and then most likely start cussing and fuming, etc. I know I watch very little TV, but what I have watched over the past..whatever, many months now, I have seen those infoblurbs about the switch over many, many,many times. You would have had to NOT been watching any TV at all whatsoever to not see them.

OTA TV: The long goodbye.

[Anonymous Coward]

I work for an affiliate, and we had three rounds of layoffs in the last 12 months: I'm sure I won't survive the next one. But even I can see terrestrial broadcast stations are a dying institution, even if the economy did happen to miraculously rebound in one Presidential term. It will be soon when the networks bypass the affiliates and send the signal straight to cable/sat. They might rent out time on a digital subchannel from the remaining stations just to have such a presence (it's cheap, $120K gets you 24/7/365 on your local PBS stations DTV subchannel) in select markets, but the days of needing an affiliate to reach 100% of your audience are drawing to a close. And once full definition Video On Demand is universal, they'll dump the cable/sat middlemen and go direct to the Net in full definition.

Centralcasting, using outsourced Indian producers, editors and directors to run shows remotely using Ross/Overdrive (or Ignite/Parkervision), web presence, etc. won't save local affiliates from going the way of the dodo. Technology is just moving too fast for them to react, analyze and implement. The more the market shrinks for them, the more they pull a turtle and keep whittling down original content to be mere re-transmitters of the network feed. The lack of original content is their doom.

Don't expect to see major network affiliates anymore in 15 years, it's inevitable.

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised

[Rockin'Robert]

Because nobody will be able to receive it?
RR
Kill your TV, and kill it now, before it's too late!

Who gives a rats ass about Digital TV

[Dude23]

I could give a rats ass about digital TV since I don't even watch analog TV anyway. I suppose the main benefit is that you get to watch the crap in even better resolution. Wow, crap in even better resolution!!!!

Newer digital stations lower power?

[Anonymous Coward]

I noticed that *most* of the new transmitters are lower power (some by quite a bit) for roughly the same or expanded coverage area. Better signal and less power? Seems like a win to me.

http://www.fcc.gov/dtv/markets/

How is this different?

[spam38]

Can somebody tell me how this is different? I was under the impression that stations were under no obligation to continue their analog broadcast until even the original switchover date. In fact, the PBS station in town has already completed their switch to digital. Therefore, the new bill only seems to explicitly state something that was already possible with the previous bill. Am I missing something here?