Slashdot Mirror
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.
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?
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.
Yes, yes, lets rip off that bandage as slooooowly as possible so we extend the pain and confusion as long as possible.
/sarcasm>
<
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.
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?
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
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.
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?
Captain Digital Fighting for truth, justice, and graphic design.
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.