US Digital TV Switchover Delayed Until June

necro81 writes "The Delay DTV Act was passed first by the Senate, now by the House, and will be signed by the President. The hard cutoff for turning off analog TV broadcasts in the US has been pushed out to June 12th. The act had earlier failed to gain a 2/3rds majority in the House, but passed this afternoon with a simple majority. The bill allows stations to cease analog transmissions at any point between Feb 17th (the old cutoff) and June 12th, and many have signaled they will do so."

Comments

Deja vu

[Anonymous Coward]

In June, you'll find that there are many people who have not bought digital receivers for their televisions. June is the new February.

Re:Deja vu

[jaymz666]

It makes sense to not have it change during sweeps, though.

Re:Deja vu

[Curunir_wolf]

The final date will be December 21, 2012.

Re:Deja vu

[Anonymous Coward]

In June, you'll find that there are many people who have not bought digital receivers for their televisions. June is the new February.

Actually, most TV stations are still going to do the change on Feb 17th as planned. The bill just gives them the option to delay out until June.

Disclaimer, I work for a cable provider, and ALL of our market affiliates have already told us they are going to change on the 17th as planned.

So basically this bill was a waste of time. Ten years from now, people will still be pulling out old TV's and wondering why they don't work.

Re:Deja vu

[commodore64_love]

No. Because of the transition, Sweeps was moved from February to March 5.

My dad thinks the delay is great, and he hopes Congress will suddenly decide to cancel Digital television completely. Well, he is approaching 80, so maybe he's not thinking straight. Today he said to me, "Just watch, in two more years they'll stop broadcast completely and make us all upgrade to cable. The politicians love to screw us."

According to the Nielsen Ratings Company, only 5% of households are not ready. So we postponed this switch for a measly 5% of the nation. Pathetic. ----- The other 95% already have access to cable, dish, or a DTV converter box. Here in Pennsylvania, the FCC placed the estimate at 99% ready! What the heck are we waiting for???

Re:Deja vu

[BBF_BBF]

Actually, most TV stations are still going to do the change on Feb 17th as planned.

I agree, that "early switch" option pretty much makes the bill useless. If the politicians *really* wanted to protect those that were not ready for the transition, there WOULD BE NO EARLY SWITCH OPTION. This legislation is just a waste of time and money.

Re:Deja vu

[ColdWetDog]

This legislation is just a waste of time and money.

And nothing of value was lost...

Re:Deja vu

[snowraver1]

This legislation is just a waste of time and money.

Look at it this way: At least they weren't legislating your freedoms away.

Re:Deja vu

[Shakrai]

At least they weren't legislating your freedoms away.

Don't worry, that's on the legislative agenda for next week ;)

Re:Deja vu

[hedwards]

It's worse than that, due to the proviso that channels may change on their own at any time after Feb 17th, we now have a situation where nobody really knows when the switch is going to happen.

The same people that were still not aware that it was going to happen this month, are going to be caught even more off guard when channels switch over in a random fashion.

I cannot imagine how this is good news for anybody.

Re:Deja vu

[hedwards]

I lost my squiggly porn you insensitive clod! Now what am I supposed to oggle hoping that the pictures really are indecent?

Re:Deja vu

[jrumney]

17 Feb is so close now, I doubt any network that is ready for the switch is going to put it off, it will cost them money to change their plans at such short notice. If the bill is supposed to help consumers, then it would have to have forced a delay. The only purpose for this bill that I can think of is that some networks are not going to make the deadline and have lobbied for an extension.

Re:Deja vu

[cjb658]

In June, you'll find that there are many people who have not bought digital receivers for their televisions. June is the new February.

Actually, most TV stations are still going to do the change on Feb 17th as planned. The bill just gives them the option to delay out until June.

Disclaimer, I work for a cable provider, and ALL of our market affiliates have already told us they are going to change on the 17th as planned.

So basically this bill was a waste of time. Ten years from now, people will still be pulling out old TV's and wondering why they don't work.

So this bill wasn't to help us at all, it was to help TV stations that aren't DTV ready?

Re:Deja vu

[nevillethedevil]

Another superb example of government efficiency. Thought out, planned event + sudden last minute government intervention = A needlessly complex and convoluted mess. This is a fine example of why I want less government involvement in my life.

Re:Deja vu

[PitaBred]

That would only have been if the legislature had exploded while in session.

Re:Deja vu

[Anonymous Coward]

What a bunch of nonsense -- how did that get modded Informative? We wouldn't even be discussing this mass transition to DTV without some level of government involvement. Much less discussing it over the Internet...

I agree that it's a problem when the government is pandering to a tiny subset of the population which has had more than ample time to adapt to a situation and has failed to do so, but to just bleat about "government involvement" being a bad thing in general is, as always, incredibly simple-minded.

Where do you think this "thought out, planned event" originated in the first place?

Re:Deja vu

[donaldm]

The final date will be December 21, 2012.

Actually in Australia the switch off year is in 2013, however DTV has been available since 2001 and the take-up rate has been significant however there will still be many who won't make the switch until the standard TV broadcast is finally switched off.

Re:Deja vu

[donaldm]

I think you will find that this Bill allows the politicians to go to the people who have their signal cut off early and say "Well we wanted the switch off delayed but the (inset derogatory terms) TV stations went early". "It's not our fault".

Yes a nice "get out of jail card free" for the politicians ;-)

Re:Deja vu

[diggsIt]

In June, there won't be ice on my roof. It wasn't very smart to schedule this in February. Wait until the stories of people falling off their roof while trying to mount a better antenna, start coming in.

Re:Deja vu

[tburkhol]

According to the Nielsen Ratings Company, only 5% of households are not ready. So we postponed this switch for a measly 5% of the nation. Pathetic.

Unfortunately, none of the people who are ready called their congresscritters to encourage the switch. Facts don't matter in congress, only lobbying. On one hand, you've got fat-cat broadcasters anxious to shut down their old, expensive analog machinery; on the other you have downtrodden constituents declaring they can't possibly arrange to get an all-but-free converter box during the 12 months conversion media blitz.

This bill does effectively nothing but switch the focus of Feb 18 complaints from congress (for imposing the rule) to broadcasters (for switching the analog off before it was absolutely required).

Really, though, the conversion to digital TV has been much faster and more effective than the conversion to the metric system.

Re:Deja vu

[commodore64_love]

If the government was a corporation, they'd quickly go bankrupt through ineptitude. They provide even worse customer service than Comcast.

Re:Deja vu

[commodore64_love]

This whole thing is bassbackwards:

- House Democrats voted "yes delay the switch" and yet the Democrats largely represent people in the cities. The city folk are 99.9% ready, since they have the convenience of cable wired into their homes and don't watch over-the-air tv.

- House Republicans voted "no" and yet they represent rural residents (farmers) who don't have cable, and are most likely to need a delay.

I suspect the final vote had more to do with the president in charge. A Democrat Obama requested a delay, and the Democrats fell-over themselves to comply, even though their city-dwelling constituents don't need a delay. (Had it been McCain, we'd probably see an exact-opposite reaction, with Dems voting against and Reps voting for.) It's so sad it's almost funny.

Re:Deja vu

[Muad'Dave]

The nasty little secret is that many DTV channels will move from their current temporary slot to their old analog slot, making daily channel rescanning necessary until all of the stations in your area switch over. With One True Date (tm), at least we'd only have to rescan once on Feb 17th.

Re:Deja vu

[mcgrew]

The delay wasn't because not everybody has converters, but because not everybody was able to get a coupon. The govt screwed up and didn't fund for enough coupons to satisfy demand.

Once there are anough coupons there is no reason for further delay, and I seriously douby there will be further delay.

I'm wondering why so many commenters think it's so bad that the switch is delayed?

Re:Deja vu

[Ogman]

"The politicians love to screw us." Sounds like Dad is thinking straighter than most of us.

Re:Deja vu

[Golias]

This whole thing is bassbackwards:

- House Democrats voted "yes delay the switch" and yet the Democrats largely represent people in the cities. The city folk are 99.9% ready, since they have the convenience of cable wired into their homes and don't watch over-the-air tv.

- House Republicans voted "no" and yet they represent rural residents (farmers) who don't have cable, and are most likely to need a delay.

No, it's you that has it backwards. Strong over-the-air signals are really only available near urban centers. I live in the Midwest suburbs and have a roof antenna, as do most of the home-owners in my neighborhood. People out in the sticks typically have either cable or satellite, if they have TV at all.

Re:Deja vu

[Golias]

I'm wondering why so many commenters think it's so bad that the switch is delayed?

Let me count the ways.

1. Not having all broadcasters switch at once is going to be a confounding mess, even for those of us who have already switched. I'm currently using a big UHF-only antenna that I've been relying on for the last two years, because the current pre-switch digital signal is weak and UHF only. Post-switch, some broadcasters are moving their digital signal to VHF and all of them were going to be boosting the signal. Now, with the VHF band still tied up as some (but not all) migrate, there are likely to be days when NOBODY can tune in every channel with a single antenna/tuner combination. Yuck!

2. A good chunk of the freed-up bandwidth was meant to be used by emergency responders, who have made a significant investment in equipment which will now collect dust for six months.

3. A lot of businesses have started up with the plan of buying/leasing former analog VHF bandwidth. These companies now must sit on ice for six more months and pray that they don't go belly-up before they even get a chance to open.

4. Of the 5 percent that are not ready, most of them will still not "get ready" before June. Losing your TV signal for a little while is not the end of the world, and having their screens go to static is probably exactly what it takes to get them off the couch and waddling down to the store to pick up a cheap converter.

5. Local broadcasters are in a bind, because their business plans didn't call for six more months of sending two signals, but if they do take the option of switching on the 17th, they risk losing customers.

6. Current digital signals are so week, that outer-ring "exurbs" in most metro areas can't consistently tune them in. During the switch DTV signals are expected to become a lot more powerful, making the broadcasts much more widely available... but if everything is not switched at once it's going to mean that those communities will lose some of their analog signals before the digital signal is strong enough to reach them. They go dark because a handful of people were too lazy to take advantage of a converter coupon. It's idiotic.

Anything else you are wondering about?

Re:Deja vu

[jdmetz]

Maybe channels that cutoff analog transmissions early should broadcast a DTV transition message on their analog channel for a week or two so people will know what's going on.

Re:Deja vu

[jdmetz]

Even worse is that in some markets, a station will be switching its DTV broadcasts to a channel that is currently in use for analog broadcasts by another station.

For example, in Detroit, Fox uses 2 for analog broadcasts, 58 for pre-transition digital, and will use 7 for post-transition digital. But ABC uses 7 for analog. So Fox can't switch unless ABC does so first.

Re:Deja vu

[spectro]

IHMO if you using antenna to receive TV already you won't need a new better one at all since most stations will switch their high powered transmitter to the ATSC signal.

Re:Deja vu

[profplump]

And somehow delaying the switchover a few months will fix your reception problems?

Re:Deja vu

[Big Boss]

Unfortunately, many are also switching frequencies, sometimes bands. So all those "HD" antennas they were pushing in the big box stores, might not work to receive all the HD channels after the change. Some people might need to add a VHF antenna or switch to a combo unit.

Re:Deja vu

[geminidomino]

I lost my squiggly porn you insensitive clod! Now what am I supposed to oggle hoping that the pictures really are indecent?

You're on slashdot.
Ergo, you're on the internet.

Get thee to google, and let rule 34 be thy compass!

Re:Deja vu

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

It's not ineptitude. It's government operating as normal.

Oh wait, n/m.

It's about being elected, or un-elected, as the case may be, because a few million old people suddenly find their TVs don't work. "Well, screw them!" sayeth you.

"Screw you!" voteth them. Learn the rules of memes. The "why" of politics has little to do with actual reality.

Re:Deja vu

[Muad'Dave]

Oh, that's just a monumental cluster-#$#@. I'd love to see a battle of the transmitters - I've got 200kW! Oh yeah, I've got 300kW and a high-gain antenna! My analog signal's foo will wipe the floor with your lousy digital signal! Oh yeah? My digital signal will ignore your analog signal as noise!

Re:Deja vu

[Chabo]

As of 1991, the final date was August 29, 1997.

It was then delayed to April 21, 2011. However, in 1999, it was delayed again, to an unknown date.

We'll have to wait to see how that pans out.

Re:Deja vu

[Mister_Stoopid]

Coincidentally, this is also the date when the large hadron collier will finally finish repairs and conduct it's first successful test.

Re:Deja vu

[commodore64_love]

>>>People out in the sticks typically have either cable or satellite,

Nope. I looked up the Nielsen numbers today. 99% of the people living in the Metropolitian northeast are ready-to-go and won't notice the switchoff. Meanwhile people "living in the sticks" of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas are the least-prepared with 89%. Why? Because when you're living in No-Mans-Land Oklahoma you don't have city services like cable. You rely on your antenna. So repeating what I said before:

- House Republicans voted "no" and yet they represent rural residents (farmers) who are most likely to need a delay.

- House Democrats voted "yes delay the switch" and yet the Democrats largely represent people in the cities who are over 99% ready.

The way they voted is backwards from their constituents' actual needs.

Re:Deja vu

[commodore64_love]

I think my dad's in denial. He wants analog to continue forever, because with analog he gets ~15 channels whereas with digital he only gets 3. Also he says he doesn't care if they turn-off the analog in June because he'll be outside, whereas in February he's stuck inside and wants lots of channels.

I can't disagree with him, but digital is here to stay, so we might as well move on and work-out the bugs as quickly as possible. Ending analog will stop a lot of adjacent and co-channel interference with the existing DTV channels, as will moving those channels from high-UHF (50-69) downto VHF.

Re:Deja vu

[Antonius1234563]

I thought the power limitation of 20kilowatts for the low VHF channels was going to remain to persuade channels to push into the UHF frequencies. no?

Re:Deja vu

[Golias]

>>>People out in the sticks typically have either cable or satellite,

Nope. I looked up the Nielsen numbers today. 99% of the people living in the Metropolitian northeast are ready-to-go and won't notice the switchoff. Meanwhile people "living in the sticks" of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas are the least-prepared with 89%. Why? Because when you're living in No-Mans-Land Oklahoma you don't have city services like cable. You rely on your antenna. So repeating what I said before:

- House Republicans voted "no" and yet they represent rural residents (farmers) who are most likely to need a delay.

- House Democrats voted "yes delay the switch" and yet the Democrats largely represent people in the cities who are over 99% ready.

The way they voted is backwards from their constituents' actual needs.

Uh. Your data does not support your explanation. Nowhere does it indicate that the people in "No-Mans-Land" are the ones that are not ready. It could be the people in Oklahoma City.

Again, TV reception is TERRIBLE in most of rural America. Farmers/ranchers/miners either get cable/satelite, or they live with one or two mostly-snowy weak signals if they are too poor (and haven't arranged to steal the cable signal.

A drive through Minnesota's "Iron Range" towns is an impressive display of massive satellite dishes, every town has one for the local cable company's feed, plus the handful of well-off homes have their own.

Re:Deja vu

[Meski]

Finally? There might be more breakages between now and then.

Re:Deja vu

[wiredlogic]

What GP meant is that stations are currently using temporary UHF transmitters that are almost universally transmitting at lower than post-switch power levels (to conserve on electricity bills among other reasons). Those high-VHF stations that will continue to broadcast on VHF post-switch will be transmitting at lower power than their current analog signal but higher than their current temporary UHF transmitter. Because there is no way for someone to evaluate their antenna performance before the switch this is all a bit of a crap shoot for those people who don't know if they'll be able to receive the digital VHF stations post-switch.

Re:Deja vu

[evansvillelinux]

You got that right. Those same folks will still put it off as long as they can. Once again, exceptions are being made for the few and quite frankly, it pisses me off. They've pretty well made it well known on EVERY station I've watched for the past year that this was going to happen. There's no way anyone without cable TV that watches on a regular basis had no idea this was coming. You snooze, you lose. Now I gotta watch those dumb ass announcements for another four months. Thanks a lot, NOT!

Re:Deja vu

[nobaloney]

Do you really think they'd do that? They won't. They'll turn off analog and switch their digital transmission to the post-switchover assignment in June.

Re:Deja vu

[DrugCheese]

Ironically the government IS bankrupt through ineptitude.

Re:Deja vu

[Muad'Dave]

No, but I'd like to see it 8-)

Re:Deja vu

[TexNA55]

I can't disagree with him, but digital is here to stay, so we might as well move on and work-out the bugs as quickly as possible. Ending analog will stop a lot of adjacent and co-channel interference with the existing DTV channels, as will moving those channels from high-UHF (50-69) downto VHF.

We're going through the same thing here eventually... But okay.. Why is it here to stay?? Because somebody sold someone on how awesome wide-screen is- and oh listen to that wonderful sound.. What a load of old cows.. Come on. Digital is that- digital- perfect signal or nothing.. Be it dropped frames- or just a blank screen. Analog yeah I got some static; but it's watchable. People that live on the fringe areas once again are about to get shafted.

Re:Deja vu

[uncoveror]

The only thing that will motivate the lazy to get off their butts and do something is a TV making snow. So much for emergency service first responders who need the frequencies that the changeover will free up. I guess Congress thinks it is better for people to die in a fire than for the stupid and lazy to lose their idiot boxes. Read more

Confusion

[daveywest]

The reason for the date change: a bunch of elderly and poor TV viewers are confused about the switchover.

The result: now everyone is confused.

President O, aren't there more important things for you to be working on?

Re:Confusion

[geekoid]

A) it's not a whole lot of his time.
B) It important to a lot of people.

TO me the most important part of the bill is that I'll be able to get another card for a converter, since my last one expired.

Re:Confusion

[the_humeister]

Congress is the one doing this, not the president.

Re:Confusion

[Anonymous Coward]

President O, aren't there more important things for you to be working on?

Well, someone did catch Phelps with a bong, so there's that, I guess.

Re:Confusion

[IANAAC]

The reason for the date change: a bunch of elderly and poor TV viewers are confused about the switchover.

Do these people have any less right to get support from their representatives? There's a reason the vote took place. People talked to their reps.

Re:Confusion

[daveywest]

Congress is the one doing this, not the president.

... at the president's request.

Re:Confusion

[the_humeister]

Well, okay, but Congress also doesn't necessarily have to do what the president asks either.

Re:Confusion

[daveywest]

Before today's vote, only 6% of the population was confused by the changeover according to Neilson Media. That means you reached 94% of the population.

94% comprehension is a pretty good result.

I can only imagine how many people are going to be confused by a slow, staggered changeover instead of the solid Feb. 17 deadline. Its kind of like ripping off a band aid on a hairy arm. Its a lot more painful if you do it slowly.

Re:Confusion

[Toonol]

Little things, en masse, are often more important than the big things.

Re:Confusion

[jythie]

Doesn't "necessarily have to"?
 
    It is the president's job to do what congress says, not the other way around.

Re:Confusion

[SpcCowboy]

Do these people have any less right to get support from their representatives? There's a reason the vote took place. People talked to their reps.

It makes one wonder that if people understood enough that something was going on to talk to their reps, yet weren't able to figure out that they just need a box or cable (not exactly rocket science) are is the extra few months really going to be long enough for them to figure out what to do?

Re:Confusion

[agm]

Why is the state even involved in this. How is this any of their business? It's a sad shame to see just how far socialism has crept into the system.

Re:Confusion

[geekoid]

Not really.

If you have your converter, you won't notice. No confusion.
If you don't then you may seem some stations go away.

Re:Confusion

[daveywest]

The state (rightfully) licenses business (tv, radio, cellphone, etc.) to use various parts of the electromagnetic radio wave spectrum. The state wants to change how those airwaves are used and must coordinate changes involving hundreds of licensees.

Re:Confusion

[agm]

If the state is already permitting the use of various frequencies for commercial companies, surely those companies should be able to use those frequencies as they see fit. Legislating that they must go from analog to digital at all is spitting in the face of the liberties of those companies. IMO the whole digital/analog thing should be up to the free market, NOT the state.

Re:Confusion

[HeronBlademaster]

Especially confusing since stations have been shouting "FEBRUARY 17" from the rooftops for several months now.

The same kind of people who aren't ready for it by now won't be ready for it by June. I have a sneaking suspicion that the delay is much more for the benefit of stations that aren't ready, rather than consumers.

Re:Confusion

[GWBasic]

I can only imagine how many people are going to be confused by a slow, staggered changeover instead of the solid Feb. 17 deadline. Its kind of like ripping off a band aid on a hairy arm. Its a lot more painful if you do it slowly.

I would consider 3-10 years a "slow, staggered changeover." 3-4 months is more of a "we're turning it off now, and we really mean it... Yes, we really really really mean it."

The real mistake isn't the changeover date or lack of coupons; it's that every TV sold since 1998 should have had a big sticker declaring the changeover date.

Re:Confusion

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

You're confusing a President with a Prime Minister.

The Executive, Legislature, and Court are supposed to balance each other.

The Legislature in no way has complete primacy in the US form of representative democracy.

Re:Confusion

[Chris Burke]

TO me the most important part of the bill is that I'll be able to get another card for a converter, since my last one expired.

Yeah, more funding for the coupon program is a big part. You may be able to get another one regardless, since there's supposed to be two per household. Since an expired coupon's money goes back in the pool, you may luck out and be able to get one.

To people worried that this is just part of a never ending cycle of delays because we'll never have everyone ready for the switch... First, this delay is much shorter than previous delays which moved the roll out date by years, so even if it more delays occur I think we can all see the change is really going to happen. Second, you have to admit that there were problems with the implementation of the roll out. The coupon program was underfunded, and confusion resulted in a lot of people who didn't need converters using coupons to get them -- I remember seeing adds on cable TV that did not specify that having cable meant you didn't need the box. Shortages of converters meant a lot of people who did need the boxes couldn't get them before their coupon expired, then couldn't get a new one because the coupon program was out of money.

Fix those problems, let the extra publicity for the issue reach the public, give it a few months, and we should find that far fewer people are still unprepared. Yes not everyone will be and I'm perfectly happy letting the lazy suffer at that point. This is about fixing the problems the government caused by screwing up the program. If they do in fact fix the problem, they'll get most of the people who weren't ready because of those problems, and then I'll say we'll be ready for the switch.

Re:Confusion

[Daniel Dvorkin]

If the state is already permitting the use of various frequencies for commercial companies, surely those companies should be able to use those frequencies as they see fit. Legislating that they must go from analog to digital at all is spitting in the face of the liberties of those companies. IMO the whole digital/analog thing should be up to the free market, NOT the state.

The problem with this is the phrase "those companies." Different companies bid on different frequencies, for different uses, at different times. Nobody gets to buy a frequency forever. The only alternative to state allocation of specific frequencies for specific uses is a free-for-all in which everyone broadcasts whatever they want at whatever frequency they want and whatever power they can afford, and you end up with interference on every channel. Nobody wins in such a scenario. The current auction model may be broken, but the idea that "the market" can solve this particular problem runs up smack against the laws of physics.

Re:Confusion

[nabsltd]

With a hard cutoff date and no option to switch before that day, far less people would be confused.

As it is, now you are adding people who already have ATSC receivers to the "likely confused", as they will have to keep track of exactly when each station switches and how that station switches (changing frequency, power level, transmitter location, virtual channel, etc.).

In addition, automatically programmed devices (like the HD TiVo) will have to change the virtual to physical mapping at different times for each station. In some cases, the stations will choose to re-brand with the new permanent channel because that old channel could now be opened up. Think of the confusion if some new station ends up on channel 4 while "NBC 4" is broadcasting on channel 48.

The thing that is most stupid is that the original plan wasn't to do the cutover on a Saturday afternoon. What possible reason could there be to make Tuesday the changeover day?

Re:Confusion

[Matt]

Not really.

If you have your converter, you won't notice. No confusion.
If you don't then you may seem some stations go away.

It's not that easy. TV stations in the VHF-High band (channels 7-13) are currently transmitting the digital version of themselves in the higher UHF channels. After they stop their analog transmissions, they'll move their digital transmissions to their VHF-High channels.

Thus many major stations (4 out of the 7 big VHF stations here) will move around after the transition. Now that transition will be gradual and not so predictable. Stations will be moving around, and we'll have to keep rescanning or otherwise updating our tuners, either in converter boxes or new TVs.

Re:Confusion

[agm]

The problem isn't so much the way the state decides who gets to use which frequencies at which time based on an auction model - the problem is with the state then dictating what those frequencies are used for. Once a company has successfully bid for the usage of a slice of the radio-waves for a certain period, it should be completely up to them what they broadcast.

Re:Confusion

[Spleen]

Don't get my wrong, I love my TiVo box, but TiVo isn't prompt with keeping up with listings changes. I own 2 units and everytime my cable provider has added/removed or shuffled channels, I have to enter a ticket. It takes about a week after the ticket is entered for it to be updated.

So while I agree that this isn't going to eliminate confusion, I have no sympathy for any hardship bestowed on TiVo's update department.

Re:Confusion

[muridae]

If they have an ATSC receiver already, they can just watch in digital now. Nothing was stopping the stations from broadcasting in digital right now, and many of the local stations here (CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, and PBS) already are. There was nothing in the cutoff plan that said 'okay, people, today everything switches. Nothing in digital before, nothing in analog after.'

Re:Confusion

[POTSandPANS]

Maybe the time people spent "talking to their reps" would have been better spent on learning about the transition?

Re:Confusion

[Toonol]

This is Slashdot, and probably more than 6% of the posts here about the switchover are wrong or confused in some fashion about the switchover. In less technical forums, the percentage is much higher.

I suppose, if you're confidently wrong, you're not confused.

Re:Confusion

[Toonol]

The mistake is using legislative means to force an upgrade in technology onto a market. The problems now are a consequence of the initial misguided decision made many years ago.

Re:Confusion

[slimjim8094]

Yeah, except (as I've mentioned before) PBS '13' is on 61 analog in my area.

61 comes in like shit.

When the switch happens, they will be moving back to physical channel 13, and the original location and power. Until then, I'm stuck with a nice HDTV that I can't really use for PBS... and that's most of what I watch.

I know how to re-channelscan when all the physical channels move... all at different times. Most people only scanned when they got the box.

Thus, ignorant people on analog will go 'why is Fox not working? NBC works fine...'. Ignorant people on digital will go 'why is Fox not working? NBC works fine'... and us knowledgable people will be shouting on Slashdot.

Re:Confusion

[JesusQuintana]

I find your insensitivity toward the concerns of the elderly and poor to be troubling. I hope for your sake that you will never find yourself in either demographic. Of course, with our economic outlook, we're all going to be poor. So this will be mean that you will need to die young. The fact remains: you either get old or die.

Access to information is an important part of being in a society. In many areas of the country, high speed internet access and cable are simply not available. Television is the only way for many people to stay connected to society and to remain informed. (Especially when you consider that newspapers are an endangered species.)

TV serves to socialize and aculture peoples into a larger society. It also serves a vital role in the dissemination of potentially life saving information in times of war, natural disaster, or severe weather. If a TV transmitter is struck by an ice storm or bomb or hurricane, one only needs to rebuild the transmitter. If an ice storm takes out miles and miles of cable system lines, the challenge to get viewers back online is much larger. TV serves a vital role during times of local and national emergency. (In other words, we just put Wheel of Fortune on TV until we REALLY need to use it.)

Further, broadcast TV serves foreign language speaking populations, remote populations, children (through education programming), and keeps the elderly company. If your grandparents can't have their TV, you might actually need to go spend time with them. In all seriousness, depression is a big problem among the elderly. I think taking away their TV is a big deal.

Of course, your point that people will be even more confused is right on target. I'm not sure that there is any good solution at this late stage. It's unfortunate that we find ourselves in this predicament.

Re:Confusion

[rocketPack]

You said:

President O, aren't there more important things for you to be working on?

TFS said:

"The Delay DTV Act was passed first by the Senate, now in the House

Wait, what part of that says the President wasted a bunch of time on something? It's not his job or responsibility to write laws, he just accepts what the house and senate throw at him. This was, most certainly, not of his doing nor a "waste" of his time, since he didn't actually commit any to it...

Re:Confusion

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't the stations, and it isn't the consumers. It IS these people.

Re:Confusion

[JesusQuintana]

Statistics can be confusing. You point out that 94% of the population comprehends. I don't believe that is true. I believe 94% may be ready for the transition, but that certainly doesn't mean they comprehend. A number of studies and surveys indicate that there a major misconceptions among broad segments of the population.

In fact, depending on your source, around 13% of the population watch TV over-the-air. The 6% that are not ready are a subset of the OTA population. The other 87% have cable or satellite and are unaffected. So, in effect, our results are very poor. A little over half of the affected population is ready for the transition. So after all this time spent preparing and educating, our results are 50/50.

I think many people know that February 17th is important. They may not understand why, but they got the date. Your point that changing everything now will add great amounts of confusion is clearly valid. (IMHO)

Re:Confusion

[commodore64_love]

>>>B) It important to a lot of people.

No not really. Only 5% of the nation is not ready according to Nielsen Ratings. The other 95% have cable, dish, or DTV boxes. Here in Pennsylvania the number is 99% ready, and that's probably true throughout most of the I-95 corridor. This postponement is ridiculous. We not only have a majority ready to switch, but a super-duper Constitutional majority (greater than three-fourths) ready for the switch.

Re:Confusion

[genner]

The reason for the date change: a bunch of elderly and poor TV viewers are confused about the switchover.

The result: now everyone is confused.

Hooray for equality!

Re:Confusion

[genner]

Doesn't "necessarily have to"? It is the president's job to do what congress says, not the other way around.

I'm pretty sure it doesn't work either direction.

Re:Confusion

[drinkypoo]

I have a sneaking suspicion that the delay is much more for the benefit of stations that aren't ready, rather than consumers.

the question isn't whether you're paranoid, but whether you're paranoid enough. what if the goal is to delay the freeing up of the spectrum? it could be to give ma bell time to lock in their world domination before wireless takes over the last mile :)

Re:Confusion

[novakyu]

The Legislature in no way has complete primacy in the US form of representative democracy.

But a congress with a backbone does have more power than the president.

The president wants to go through with an invasion that doesn't serve U.S. interest? The congress can vote not to fund that activity.

The president wants to do something shady? The congress can outlaw that activity.

The president (or one of his underlings) have done something shady? The congress can impeach him.

The legislature (especially one with veto-overriding majority on one side of the issue) is the most powerful branch of the government, and to evade responsibility for everything that's gone wrong is ... well, the way of the weasel.

Re:Confusion

[Dhalka226]

I can't speak for anybody else, but around here (Chicago) the stations are still screaming February 17th from the rooftops. It looks like they plan on throwing the switch on that date anyway, which makes a lot of sense. I suspect a lot of other stations in other markets will follow suit, and for all intents and purposes this bill will be meaningless.

Re:Confusion

[unitron]

If the state is already permitting the use of various frequencies for commercial companies, surely those companies should be able to use those frequencies as they see fit.

The "state", through the Federal Communications Commission, permits, or licenses, the use, by commercial companies and others, of various frequencies for specific applications. I'm speaking specifically of those chunks of spectrum which have not been auctioned off. For instance, the television broadcasters hold licenses to use particular frequencies for the purpose of broadcasting television signals. If they don't want to use that particular frequency to broadcast a television signal, then they won't get, or be allowed to retain, a license for that particular frequency.

If the frequency used for Channel 5 in Raleigh could be used for something other than television in Washington DC (I think they have a Channel 5) and the people at 5 in Washington decided to broadcast their television signal on a frequency somewhere in the business FM radio band (where taxi radios are), imagine how much fun designing television tuners would be.

Re:Confusion

[commodore64_love]

If you look at the voting rolls (and listen to the speeches), you can see that this is a case of the Democrats falling-in-line behind Democrat Obama's wishes. 95% of them voted "yes" while only 5% of Republicans joined them. The Republicans (rightly) decided the delay was not necessary, but instead proposed simply handing-out more coupons to help people buy boxes.

As for the speeches, it was amusing: "We must postpone the analog switchoff because it we don't, emergency responders won't be able to hear their calls." - Um what?!?!? Clearly the Congresswoman who said this has no idea what she's voting for. They're just obediently falling into line as commanded by their Democrat Speaker of the House. "We have to support Obama and he wants to delay the analog switchoff, so vote yes even if you don't understand what it's about."

I was happy when I heard this Democrat from California: "I suspect another motive. I suspect President Obama's decision to delay DTV comes from his new advisor - a man who works for Clearchannel Communications that purchased channels 52 to 69. It's not about helping the people, but about helping a corporation. We should investigate this further."

Re:Confusion

[commodore64_love]

"Balance" is a popular myth taught in U.S. schools (along with "the constitution is a guideline, not law"), but not true when you investigate further. The Founder named Thomas Jefferson stated the Supreme Court was envisioned as the weakest and least-important branch. It was the Legislative branch who would hold the maximum amount of power, including the power to make war, as a representative both of the People and the State Legislatures. The Executive was constrained to merely obeying the laws Congress had passed (hence the name "execute").

Over time the president has used populism to subsume more power, but that's not what was originally intended, since the Founders had overthrown one monarch (UK King) and multiple governors (British appointees) and certainly did not want another monarch to rule.

Re:Confusion

[commodore64_love]

There's a limited amount of space on the EM Band, therefore the government has to enforce rules just the same as it enforces rules on roads. Without rules, you'd have chaos with some stations showing analog, others digital, and likely with lots of interference. By placing the FCC in charge, you eliminate the "crashes" of overlapping stations.

Re:Confusion

[commodore64_love]

Here in Pennsylvania, according to the FCC, 99% of our citizens are ready for analog shutoff. The same percentage probably applies in neighboring states of Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey.

Why should we postpone the analog shutoff if 99% of the people are ready for it???

Re:Confusion

[commodore64_love]

Does a RENTER get to decide how he's going to use his apartment? No. The owner of the space sets rules, limits use, and can evict the tenant with proper notice. In the case of the radiowaves, the renter is the company and the owners are the American People.

So no the companies don't own the frequency. They merely rent it, and said frequency can be revoked at any time (as was the case with channels 52 to 83).

Re:Confusion

[commodore64_love]

President Obama *pressured* Congress to pass a law to delay the switchover.

Re:Confusion

[EdZep]

It doesn't help that the stations and/or industry and/or fed-funded PSAs have been trumpeting misleading information (in west/central Georgia, at any rate): "If you receive television broadcasts with an antenna, you will need a converter box to continue watching television after Feb. 17th."

Re:Confusion

[SydShamino]

If the state is already permitting the use of various frequencies for commercial companies, surely those companies should be able to use those frequencies as they see fit.

Analog broadcasts bleed over into neighboring channels, and bleed badly between neighboring markets.

Besides, we only have so much bandwidth. If we (the public that owns the bandwidth) license bandwidth to someone, and then they don't use it in a way that benefits us, we can take it back or make them change. It's not like a broadcast license issued in 1954 is an infinite right to use of spectrum.

Re:Confusion

[hedwards]

Umm, sure they do. The Legislature writes the legislation, can pass it with the 60% and at that point, the President has had precisely 0 to do with it.

Not going to happen often with the kind of fractious political parties we've got, but they definitely can do it.

And besides that the President doesn't get to introduce legislation without somebody in the congress sponsoring it. If they don't want to sponsor it, it doesn't even get to committee.

Re:Confusion

[Toonol]

And that was already being done with the analog spectrum. The FCC went further than that; they will revoke your license if you don't switch to the new, digital, protocol. That's not simply preventing EM interference; that's trying to control the direction of the market.

I'm not saying the digital format is bad... I think it's got a lot of benefits, and some drawbacks, over analog. I'm just saying the proper way would have been to allow licensed stations to broadcast in one or both, and let the people decide.

Re:Confusion

[hedwards]

Citation necessary.

The Jeffersonian Democracy is defined by the ability of the three branches of government to over rule each other. And that is why it is called balanced. There is no myth there at all, there is nothing that one branch can do that one or both of the other branches can undo.

Re:Confusion

[SydShamino]

Ok, then the government can simply narrow the slice next time it's up to renew the license. That would force the digital transition anyway, due to the bleed analog broadcasts generate into neighboring spectrum.

(Digital can, too, but it's more easily filtered out.)

And I mourn for the society where every station used it's own broadcast format, and every television has to have five decoders to translate NTSC, PAL, ATSC, and other random formats that a big company decided to force onto the market.

Re:Confusion

[uncoveror]

Some other consequences: Emergency first responders were going to get new frequencies to improve their communications as of February 17. Forget that. People can die in a fire, but don't you dare take away my idiot box!

AT&T and Verizon were sold the freed up bandwidth that didn't go to emergency services. They will sue if their lawyers determine that they can sue the government. Find my whole take on this here.

Re:Confusion

[cjb658]

So I have cable with a QAM tuner TV. The guy at Circuit City said I could get digital cable without having to rent a box from the cable company with it.

Turns out, the only digital channels I get are the ones that come in over the air.

Is/was this supposed to change on Feb 17?

Re:Confusion

[nsayer]

If you have your converter, you won't notice. No confusion.

That's not 100% true.

As stations transition, their digital transmitter changes frequency. Receivers must be informed of this, either by being told to rescan or (in the case of things like DirecTV receivers that have a built-in or add-on ATSC tuner) get these changes from a service provider.

If 2/17 had remained the transition date, then this nonsense would have been done once.

But if the transition date is fuzzy, then it's going to be a gigantic pain in the tuchus.

Re:Confusion

[warsql]

Another anecdotal complaint...

In Cleveland, every network channel except the ABC affiliate is changing frequency. PBS is not broadcasting in digital yet, and the current NBC ATSC broadcast on channel 2 is poor.

Talk about confusion.

Re:Confusion

[Matt]

So I have cable with a QAM tuner TV. The guy at Circuit City said I could get digital cable without having to rent a box from the cable company with it.

Turns out, the only digital channels I get are the ones that come in over the air.

I've seen the same thing as you, on (Cox) basic cable. They're heavily pushing their digital cable service. I had it briefly, and with their box I had a great many additional channels which my new TV doesn't find with its own tuner / decoder.

I've also heard that a new TV can pick up all of digital cable, except for goodies like online TV guide, convenient pay-per-view, and other interactive features. I don't believe it - some other trickery is going on.

(I went back to basic cable, because after their promotion for digital cable ran out, it was very expensive.)

Re:Confusion

[rizzo320]

So I have cable with a QAM tuner TV. The guy at Circuit City said I could get digital cable without having to rent a box from the cable company with it. Turns out, the only digital channels I get are the ones that come in over the air. Is/was this supposed to change on Feb 17?

Nope. This switch over was for over-the-air only, and remains so even with this new legislation. Your first mistake was listening to the guy at Circuit City. There's a really good chance that most cable companies will never send anything over in Clear QAM other than your over-the-air stations. Everything else will most likely remain encrypted, and only received with a cable box or cablecard compatible set top box or TV.

I've heard (but not sure about) there is a 5 year moratorium on cable companies turning off their analog (cable-ready) signals. Who knows what will happen after that point.

Re:Confusion

[guyminuslife]

I was watching television about a month ago with my grandfather, who is pushing eighty. One of the public service announcements about the switch came on.

"Is there anyone who seriously hasn't seen this commercial a hundred times already?" my grandfather asked. "I don't see why they keep playing them."

Conclusion: if you're old enough that you haven't noticed that analog television isn't going to work any more, you probably don't know the difference between regularly-scheduled programming and white noise.

Re:Confusion

[GWBasic]

The mistake is using legislative means to force an upgrade in technology onto a market. The problems now are a consequence of the initial misguided decision made many years ago.

Not quite. It's more like "legislative means" delayed an upgrade in most cases. I think if we let free-markets prevail, by now we'd be down to 1-2 channels in dense low-income areas.

Re:Confusion

[jythie]

Balance yes, but by design the president is supposed to execute congresses's will, not impose it. Unfortunatly over the years people have seen the president more and more as the 'leader of the country' rather then 'person in charge of implementing the laws'.

Re:Confusion

[mrchaotica]

TV serves to socialize and aculture peoples into a larger society. It also serves a vital role in the dissemination of potentially life saving information in times of war, natural disaster, or severe weather. If a TV transmitter is struck by an ice storm or bomb or hurricane, one only needs to rebuild the transmitter. If an ice storm takes out miles and miles of cable system lines, the challenge to get viewers back online is much larger. TV serves a vital role during times of local and national emergency. (In other words, we just put Wheel of Fortune on TV until we REALLY need to use it.)

Haven't you ever heard of a RADIO?!

Re:Confusion

[xaxa]

I know how to re-channelscan when all the physical channels move... all at different times. Most people only scanned when they got the box.

Very occasionally, my UK DVB-T box puts an overlay on the screen "New channels are available. Rescan now?" (it's an option because a rescan takes a couple of minutes). I don't know if this in the ATSC spec.

Re:Confusion

[sahonen]

Any station that's not ready by now deserves to have its license revoked. Feb 17th was only the latest of many, MANY cutoff dates that this has been through, and the Feb 17 cutoff was set back in 2005.

Re:Confusion

[walt-sjc]

Holy shit. In other words, Obama can do no wrong... Like the fact that he, like his good buddy Bush, still supports warrant-less domestic spying on Americans and granting immunity to the telcos - but it's OK *NOW*, he is a Democrat! And Bush was the devil!

Here is a giant freakin cluebat. Obama is NOT the black Jesus Christ come to save the world. Don't get me wrong, our other option for Pres. was no better, but decisions like this (DTV delay) are just fucking stupid, and the majority of congress support this stupidity.

Now there are many good reasons for supporting Obama and that's FINE! This, however, isn't one of them.

Re:Confusion

[internerdj]

Wait. I thought that I read that the delay measure did not include extra money for converter coupons and that is "supposed" to be part of the stimulus ball-o-pork that is being bounced around congress. Did I misunderstand?

Re:Confusion

[hazydave]

ATSC channels all broadcast a logical channel assignment, and that's what your PVR is going to use. So if your local "NBC-4" affiliate switches from UHF 48 down to some other assignment (could go back to VHF 4, but most are not returning to the lower VHF band), you'll still see it in the tuner as logical 4.

If you're already digital, the only real effect here is that, for OTA stuff, you'll potentially have to re-scan more than once. There's a 99% chance that your local station already has their switch-off/switch-over plans online.

And of course, all those upper UHF channels (700MHz band, channels above UHF 51) are going away, at least once analog is fully switched off, if not before then. They're the channels most folks are having trouble with. It's not simply the greater propagation loss due to higher frequency, but the simple fact that most consumer antenna and amplifier gear that claims "50-1000MHz" or whatever is usually crap beyond 600MHz or so anyway.

Re:Confusion

[beaviz]

No not really. Only 5% of the nation is not ready according to Nielsen Ratings. The other 95% have cable, dish, or DTV boxes. Here in Pennsylvania the number is 99% ready, and that's probably true throughout most of the I-95 corridor. This postponement is ridiculous. We not only have a majority ready to switch, but a super-duper Constitutional majority (greater than three-fourths) ready for the switch.

You're so fucking right! And the exact same goes for the fucking Linux and Mac whiners. They have had there time to buy Microsoft Windows - no fucking need to whine about closed proprietary file formats, DRM or whatever they're crying about this week.

As long as more than three-fourth of the population uses Windows, I say we ignore the fucking rest. You're with me right?

Re:Confusion

[flitty]

I've also heard that a new TV can pick up all of digital cable, except for goodies like online TV guide, convenient pay-per-view, and other interactive features. I don't believe it - some other trickery is going on.

For the first year I had comcast after i bought my new tv, I could get my neighbor's streams they were running, a LOT of pr-0n, some new release movies, and a couple people watching HBO on demand like Big Love and Bill Maher. Finally like 4 months ago, comcast got their wires straightened out and we no longer can see what our neighbors are watching. Too bad, it was fun to watch the 12 year old boy pausing his movies in certain... spots...

Re:Confusion

[BodhiCat]

I wonder how many people bought convert boxes when they have a digital ready TV already?
Digital ready TV's have been sold for at least the last 5(?) years. Also, most cable, including Comcast, will still be available for analog TV's. Most of this is just paranoia from the news media.

Re:Confusion

[indifferent children]

Only 5% of the nation is not ready according to Nielsen Ratings.

So 15 million people is no longer considered "a lot"? Wow.

Re:Confusion

[xgr3gx]

Just pull the F'ing plug already ( on analog, not the elderly TV viewers)
How long have we been seeing the ads about the transition?
I have to see one at least once a day, and it doesn't even apply to me, because I have cable.
How can they be so unprepared, theres a million websites and phone numbers you can call.
I know not everyone is a electronics junky, but the concept of an antenna used for receiving TV broadcasts has been around for decades.
What is so confusing about "If you use an antenna to watch TV, get one of these boxes. If you have cable or satellite you are all set"
People who were alive when broadcast television was invented, know what an antenna is.
It's not like the ads are saying "If your cable transmission in QAM-64, you need a model A converter box, but if it's QAM-256, you need a model B, unless you only watch unencrypted QAM-256, in which case you'll need model B1.
Set a moratorium date and stick to it, or you will never get off of F'ing analog broadcast.
Pull the damn plug and people will figure out what they need quickly. End rant (Sorry)

Re:Confusion

[commodore64_love]

>>>Citation necessary

Here you go: "This member [the Supreme Court] of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs." - Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114 - If one branch is weaker ("helpless") than the other two branches, you do not have balance. Therefore what we were taught in the government school was a myth (along with the George Washington cherry tree story).

Balance only exists when the branches have equal power, which they do not.

Re:Confusion

[Zenaku]

Yes, there is. The Supreme Court can rule that an act passed by Congress and signed by the President is unconstitutional, and strike it down.

You may be thinking that congress can then amend the constitution, but you would be wrong. Once an amendment to the constitution is passed by congress, it must still be ratified by the state legislatures of three quarters of the states in the union, and those state legislatures are not one of the three branches of our federal government.

Re:Confusion

[cjb658]

This was coming in on your cable box, or just over QAM?

Re:Confusion

[Asic Eng]

Why, where do you see the benefit for society in changing the regulation in that way? One possible problem could be that suddenly there are 5 different digital TV standards in the US, moving to another state could mean your TV would no longer be able to receive any programs etc. It's like electric power - the US uses 110 Volts at 60 Hz. If every company could use their own voltage and frequency, it would be much harder to sell and manufacture electrical appliances. Supply would be less stable since you can't easily link the networks etc. Standardization has it's problems, but it brings huge benefits, too. The US has a huge advantage in having the worlds biggest domestic market - would be a pity to lose that.

Re:Confusion

[dmleach]

...a bunch of elderly and poor viewers...

Okay, the one person in my family who knows more about the changeover than anyone else is my wife's grandmother. They must be advertising the swap all the time on things she watches. Since Christmas she's been asking everyone she comes across whether or not they've got their coupon and are ready for the swap. Can't speak for the latter, but in my sample size of one, the elderly are extremely well informed.

Re:Confusion

[commodore64_love]

>>>That's not simply preventing EM interference; that's trying to control the direction of the market.

No shit Sherlock. It's part of the FCC's job description to mediate and control standards just the same as it's the DMV's job to regulate roads at the state level. It was the FCC who, after various experiments, chose the NTSC protocol in the 1930s. It was the FCC who choose the RCA method of overlapping color onto black-and-white, instead of using a spinning color wheel (1950s). And now it's the FCC who decided to upgrade NTSC to ATSC (8VSB). That's their job - to regulate the "roads" of the EM spectrum to avoid crashes (interference).

>>>the proper way would have been to allow licensed stations to broadcast in one or both, and let the people decide.

The last time the FCC did that, with AM Stereo, it failed miserably because there were 3 competing standards and nobody knew what to buy. England had similar problems when they simulcast both 405-line and 625-line television from the 1950s to the 1990s.

In both cases it was a confusing mess, and there's no reason to repeat the same mistake with American TV. It is better to simply say, "Engineering tests show digital is better than analog, with upto 4 programs per channel, and using only half as much spectrum. Therefore we will end analog and sell-off 52 to 69 for new services."

Re:Confusion

[commodore64_love]

No you're wrong. There's no requirement that NBC, FOX, CW, et cetera "have" to broadcast. They could just as easily decide to shutdown their transmitters and go completely cable. The reason they don't is because they still make a profit off antenna viewers.

Re:Confusion

[Golias]

Only 5% of the nation is not ready according to Nielsen Ratings.

So 15 million people is no longer considered "a lot"? Wow.

So what would you call the 285 million people now having to put up with all of this crap because of them?

Re:Confusion

[commodore64_love]

>>>Ok, then the government can simply narrow the slice next time it's up to renew the license.

That's essentially what the government has done. Stations were granted two "slices" of the spectrum to broadcast both analog and digital. Now the stations will have their license for the analog slice revoked on June 12, and channels 52 to 69 will be used for wireless services like internet, cellphone, and/or police radio.

Re:Confusion

[commodore64_love]

How is that PSA wrong?

Re:Confusion

[Golias]

I suppose, if you're confidently wrong, you're not confused.

Worked for Biden in the VP debate.

Re:Confusion

[differentialman]

"The Republicans (rightly) decided the delay was not necessary, but instead proposed simply handing-out more coupons to help people buy boxes."

The coupon program had run out of money... And the Republicans want to just keep handing out coupons while disregarding that fact that there's no money behind it? Actually... yeah, that sounds about right. I'm totally not surprised.

Re:Confusion

[Monsuco]

I find your insensitivity toward the concerns of the elderly and poor to be troubling.

Yes, because their is no greater loss than a brief interruption in TV service.

Of course, with our economic outlook, we're all going to be poor.

Our economy may be in a recession, but our unemployment rate is still significantly lower than what is considered normal for several first world countries such as France, as is our Per Capita GDP. The biggest issue our economy will face is our soaring national debt.

Access to information is an important part of being in a society.

But it is in no way an entitlement that you should have uninterrupted TV service.

In many areas of the country, high speed internet access and cable are simply not available.

Ignoring expensive satellite internet, you are right. However one can easily read the news via dial up.

Television is the only way for many people to stay connected to society and to remain informed. (Especially when you consider that newspapers are an endangered species.)

Well, there is radio, and it will be many years before we see newspapers all go bankrupt. National papers might, and I think you will see a few national papers such as the New York Times go, I think you will likely have your local paper (albiet trimmed down) for several more decades. By then, the DTV transition will be long gone.

TV serves to socialize and aculture peoples into a larger society.

Yes, because what would society do if we didn't hear of Paris Hilton's latest sexcapade.

It also serves a vital role in the dissemination of potentially life saving information in times of war, natural disaster, or severe weather.

Yes, because we all know weather radios, radios, and reverse 911 cannot fill that role.

If a TV transmitter is struck by an ice storm or bomb or hurricane, one only needs to rebuild the transmitter. If an ice storm takes out miles and miles of cable system lines, the challenge to get viewers back online is much larger. TV serves a vital role during times of local and national emergency. (In other words, we just put Wheel of Fortune on TV until we REALLY need to use it.)

In most hurricanes, storms, etc. that are that severey your power will likely go out so TV is irrelevant. A battery backed up weather radio is much more reliable.

Further, broadcast TV serves foreign language speaking populations, remote populations, children (through education programming), and keeps the elderly company. If your grandparents can't have their TV, you might actually need to go spend time with them. In all seriousness, depression is a big problem among the elderly. I think taking away their TV is a big deal.

But this is not "taking away" TV. At most, they will see their TV go out for a few days until they get a converter.

I'm not sure that there is any good solution at this late stage.

Other than perhaps continuing on schedule and announcing that if your TV goes out, you can go out and get a converter. So in exchange for a much more efficient use the spectrum and a clearer signal a very small number of viewers might suffer temporary outages in service (but will see better service after they get their converters.) Sounds like a fair tradeoff.

Re:Confusion

[franl]

The Executive, Legislature, and Court are supposed to balance each other.

The Legislature in no way has complete primacy in the US form of representative democracy.

True. If anything, the Executive branch has evolved to have primacy over the others (cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_presidency).

Re:Confusion

[Belial6]

I predict that the converters that are universally $50 now that the coupons are available will suddenly cost $10 within a month or two of the switch over. I am betting that the manufactures an retailers have concluded that $10 is what the consumer will pay for a converter. So, the funding for this ends up doing nothing for the general public.

Re:Confusion

[Fred Or Alive]

That's a feature of your box, rather than DVB-T, with other Freeview boxes you have the manually rescan them.

That message is more about the contents of the digital multiplexes rather than the frequency they transmit on though. Similar to the US, with the UK switch the digital multiplexes will usually change frequency on switchover, and you may have to manually scan for channels then, as the box might not realise they've moved.

Re:Confusion

[b1t r0t]

I'm pretty sure that's Clearwire, not Clear Channel.

Re:Confusion

[Fred Or Alive]

405 and 625 lines only overlapped between 1964 (launch of BBC2) and January 1985 (405 line switch off). AFAIK it was more of a switchover than competing standards, in the early '60s a government committee basically decided that we should switch to 625 lines, and had things like having the third channel only on 625 lines, colour TV only on 625 lines and so on to encourage people to switch. Most sets from the mid 60s onwards are dual standard (or later 625 only). It was rather more sedate switchover though, more based on sets reaching the end of their working lives, people wanting BBC2 or colour TV and so on rather than having to persuade people to buy convertor boxes. I don't think there was much trouble near the end, an anecdote I've heard in that in the '80s Tyne Tees TV once managed to transmit for a week without sound on 405, with no complaints.

Re:Confusion

[maxume]

Do you live in a dry county or something?

Re:Confusion

[nabsltd]

ATSC channels all broadcast a logical channel assignment, and that's what your PVR is going to use. So if your local "NBC-4" affiliate switches from UHF 48 down to some other assignment (could go back to VHF 4, but most are not returning to the lower VHF band), you'll still see it in the tuner as logical 4.

There is no requirement to use virtual channel numbers in devices. I don't enable it in any of mine that I can avoid, since it offers basically nothing, and causes a lot of problems if you get more than one "virtual channel 4".

But, my TiVo is a problem because it requires me to use virtual numbers to get guide data. And, this is an issue because...

If you're already digital, the only real effect here is that, for OTA stuff, you'll potentially have to re-scan more than once.

...my HD TiVo doesn't have a "re-scan" feature for digital channels...at least not one that connects with guide data. I have an early one, so maybe it's different now.

Re:Confusion

[commodore64_love]

Well to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, "Whether my neighbor uses Windows, Macintosh, or Linux, matters not to me. It does not harm my body, my property, nor my rights."

On the other hand I'm sure Jefferson would agree that if some people drove on the right side, and others drove on the left, and still others zig-zagged, you'd have a major traffic jam & chaos. The same is true with television, you need to have a set standard, just as you have a set standard for the roads, otherwise there'd be chaos.

Re:Confusion

[commodore64_love]

I disagree because in countries without government coupons, the boxes cost $100. So we in the U.S. are actually getting a bargain.

Re:Confusion

[commodore64_love]

I recall when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Congress does not have authority to move some North Carolina Indians from their homes in the mountains, since they were protected by both the U.S. Constitution and the NC Constitution.

The President at the time said, "The court has made its decision. Now let's see them enforce it," and proceeded to deport said Indians to Oklahoma. The Supreme Court is weak compared to the other two branches.

Re:Confusion

[Zenaku]

Yes, well by that criteria, the Executive is the only branch with any power at all. Congress certainly can't give orders to the military, or force the U.S. Attorneys Office to prosecute someone.

In any case, I was specifically addressing the assertion that in a Jeffersonian Democracy, no branch can do something that the others cannot undo. I assumed it went without saying that I was referring to the powers those branches have as laid down by the constitution, not weighing in on the overall question of whether the branches are co-equal.

In your example, the president ignored the Court's decision, but he did not, in a constitutional checks and balances sense, undo it. All it proves to me is that we are not living in a Jeffersonian Democracy.

Re:Confusion

[maxume]

It'll be a slight pain.

Re:Confusion

[commodore64_love]

No.

The Republicans wanted to PROVIDE MORE FUNDS to restart the coupon program. I thought that was clear in my previous statement ("handing-out more coupons"), but maybe I over-estimated some of my readers intelligence.

Re:Confusion

[commodore64_love]

Revolutionaries.

Re:Confusion

[Belial6]

Your example shows that the price paid has nothing to do with the price paid by consumers.

Re:Confusion

[GWBasic]

No you're wrong. There's no requirement that NBC, FOX, CW, et cetera "have" to broadcast. They could just as easily decide to shutdown their transmitters and go completely cable. The reason they don't is because they still make a profit off antenna viewers.

Then why do they complain about the expense of running the analog antenna? I really don't see how your reply is relevant to my comment; I'm arguing that the remaining analog-only viewers would currently be in densely-populated low-income areas. They would only be able to support 1-2 analog channels. What does that have to do with the major networks deciding to go cable-only?

Re:Confusion

[EdZep]

Anyone with a new digital TV can receive broadcasts with an antenna, yet not need a converter box. Thus, the PSA is wrong. And, certainly, doing more harm than good.

Re:Confusion

[agm]

In general I don't agree with state regulation. I'd rather that the market self regulates - that's the way to a freer, smaller government system.

Many stations switchin anyway...

[0100010001010011]

All the stations in my area have already announced they're going Digital Feb 17th no matter what. Electricity for those analog towers isn't cheap. I've heard of some markets that have already turned off their analog. Instead of one huge cut off, it'll more than likely be a trickle of stations until June.

I did like the suggestion I saw last time this came up about making it go B&W for 90 days prior to the switch. Although I personally thought it would be more motivating if you cut off the last 10 minutes of an hour long show with a spoof of Peanut Butter Jelly Time.

It's Digital TV time, Digital TV time, Digital TV time

(Chorus:)
Where the show at 4x
There it go 4x
Digital TV 4x
Do the Digital TV, Digital TV,
Digital TV with a digital converter 2x

Re:Many stations switchin anyway...

[Anonymous Coward]

They should have cut the analog signal 1 hour before the superbowl

Then take everybody who are wondering why "tv no work" and just shoot them.

Re:Many stations switchin anyway...

[BorgAssimilator]

I applaud those stations. The confusion coming from the government is _not_ being fair to the television stations.

Re:Many stations switchin anyway...

[Toonol]

If the lost revenue from decreased viewership is less than the electricity savings, good for them. It would be interesting to see how many people lose signal in those early switchovers.

Re:Many stations switchin anyway...

[Knara]

One of the PBS stations in Denver had a problem that shut down their analog tower in December. They decided it wasn't worth it to fix it, and so have been running crawls all last month about how they're DTV only now.

Re:Many stations switchin anyway...

[BorgAssimilator]

Um... the TV stations should be able to do whatever the hell they want. If they screw up, they'll pay for it by people not watching them which could lead them going out of business, but that doesn't mean that people have a right to tell the company what to do directly.

Re:Many stations switchin anyway...

[kelnos]

Well, it kinda depends. Aside from things resulting from this switchover mess, is there any law that says a particular station *must* broadcast? I mean, if (for example) NBC just suddenly decided, "hey, we don't feel like broadcasting at all in Chicago," then... well, shouldn't they be allowed to stop? It's their money powering the transmitters, getting advertising to pay for content, etc.

So, by extension, what's wrong with them saying "hey, we don't feel like broadcasting in analog anymore" ... at *any* time they want?

Re:Many stations switchin anyway...

[JamesP]

Their first and foremost responsibility is to the citizens as a whole.

Screw the stations. If enough people protested this, then they should revoke the whole digital broadcasting.

But this is TEEEVEEE

It's not about people's liberties, human rights, jobs, salary, etc It's the fscking soma machine

Let's worry and spend money where it really matters, like, I dunno, healthcare, education, etc, etc

And if you want TV so bad fork the $50 dollars or something. Can't afford it and doesn't have a coupon!? Well, if you couldn't bother to pay attention in sonething that was advertised for the last COUPLE OF YEARS.

Re:Many stations switchin anyway...

[noidentity]

I've heard of some markets that have already turned off their analog. Instead of one huge cut off, it'll more than likely be a trickle of stations until June.

Well, people with DTV receivers will either learn to use the "rescan for channels" command frequently, or they'll not realize all the channels they're missing. And this applies to all over-the-air receivers, either the convertors or newer DTV-ready TVs. At least the government is consistent.

Re:Many stations switchin anyway...

[nabsltd]

The FCC has rules about how many hours of things like public service you have to run to keep your license.

Until February 17, the calculation comes from the analog signal.

So, a station could have just killed the analog early without getting special FCC approval, but then they would have lost their license for both analog and digital.

Likewise, a station can just choose to "go dark", but if they don't meet the FCC regulations, they won't have a license an more if they want to turn back on again. Since good frequencies are worth money (both in the ability to cover more area and in branding goodwill for channel numbers), most would be snapped up by someone else pretty quickly, like domains that expire.

Re:Many stations switchin anyway...

[fm6]

Bah. Broadcasters can complain about fairness when they start acting fairly. They ignore rules about providing educational content, they no longer bother to do local journalism (except maybe a low-budget happy talk show), and they're only interested in broadcasting profitable pablum.

Try to remember that broadcast spectrum is a finite resource and that broadcasters get exclusive (and extremely profitable) use of a chunk of it in exchange for "serving the public good". Assuming you can use that last phrase without gagging.

I don't suppose it's that big a deal if a few people are cut off from this mass market crap for a couple of months. But to say that a highly profitable business that exploits a public resource is being "treated unfairly" because they have to run a few transmitters for a couple extra months is ludicrous.

Re:Many stations switchin anyway...

[JesusQuintana]

No doubt; Powering both a digital and analog station costs a station a lot in electricity. But when the sweeps period comes around (it was moved to March because of the first transition deadline), a 6% or greater decline in viewership is not going to be good for their revenues either. TV ad revenues are way down in this economy. There is plenty of ad inventory (a supply problem) and advertisers aren't going to pay for eyes that aren't there. Sometimes, you have to spend a little money to make some.

Re:Many stations switchin anyway...

[unitron]

You do know that "TV stations only get to be TV stations in the first place because we allow them to use spectrum that belongs to all of us, the people, collectively", right?

Re:Many stations switchin anyway...

[commodore64_love]

Yes NBC could decide to stop transmitting to Chicago, but the station would still be there, and the owner would probably affiliate himself with another network like Univision or Ion in order to keep his airwaves filled with entertainment.

Re:Many stations switchin anyway...

[word_virus]

Electricity for those analog towers isn't cheap...

Yeah, it's funny actually but it's the recent economic hiccup we've had that has the station I work for comitted to turning off analog in February. It's gonna save us about 20,000 bucks a month just in electricty.

Re:Many stations switchin anyway...

[ion.simon.c]

keep his airwaves filled with entertainment.

This is inexplicably hilarious.

Re:Many stations switchin anyway...

[h2g2bob]

Here in they UK it's not black and white, but they replace BBC Two with information on how to switch for a few months before they turn off analogue.

Different regions are switching at different times - over a period of months. The highly-populated London area switches last, in 2012. Some areas have already switched.

It seems to be going well, but if they'd mucked it up the first few times then that's a small problem, not a big one.

Re:Many stations switchin anyway...

[Abcd1234]

The FCC has rules about how many hours of things like public service you have to run to keep your license.

Until February 17, the calculation comes from the analog signal.

Citation, please. Because stories like this seem to suggest you're talking out of your ass.

Re:Many stations switchin anyway...

[NeonVice]

Some converter boxes don't have the ability to "pass through" analog signals. As a result, in areas where both signals are transmitted, viewers with the wrong converter may have to unplug the box to watch one channel broadcast in analog, then plug it back in to watch another in digital. While a majority of converter boxes made in recent months have the analog pass-through feature, consumers should check before buying. A list of such boxes available online at SunSentinel.com/converterlist (models with a red asterisk beside them allow analog pass-through). Tribune Washington Beureau

Re:Many stations switchin anyway...

[nabsltd]

The post you cite is talking about a station that has gotten the correct permission from the FCC to shut off the analog transmission early. In that case, the digital signal is counted for their broadcast requirements.

But, it's not just a simple "file this paper". The station has to show that making any change to their coverage area would not run afoul of any of the FCC regs, which include "serving the community".

Most people think that TV (and radio) stations can do things like shut off their transmitter any time they want. If a station just lowers its ERP without letting the FCC know, they can get in trouble. Shutting off entirely without notifying the FCC before the fact had better be caused by some piece of hardware catching on fire.

Washington comes together...

[korney]

Washington comes together, bails out the bunny ear industry.

Re:Washington comes together...

[geekoid]

Playboy is in trouble? Better renew my subscription~

Re:Washington comes together...

[sexconker]

http://goreadgreen.com/
Sign up for playboy or other magazines (zinio version) for free for 1 year with just your email address.

Sign up for tons using the dot.ted.add.ress@gmail.com trick, and use them on your single zinio account.

Re:Washington comes together...

[geekoid]

Thanks for the tip. My wife bought be a subscription years ago. I let it expire when my first child was born.

Re:Washington comes together...

[Toonol]

Wow, this comment was the most useful thing on Slashdot today!

Now, which is better nowadays... Playboy or Penthouse? Back in the 80s, it was Penthouse... haven't really paid attention since then...

Re:Washington comes together...

[commodore64_love]

How come I don't see either Analog or Asimov's Science Fiction there? Considering their audience is mostly geek, they should be one of the first magazines to go digital.

Re:Washington comes together...

[Vegeta99]

I have 15 mod points, and you deserve every. SINGLE. one.

Re:Washington comes together...

[Anonymous Coward]

Needed a little help for the conception huh? :)

Re:Washington comes together...

[antibryce]

finally, free porn on the internet!

Re:Washington comes together...

[sexconker]

They may be on zinio.
Goreadgreen is picking up the tab for a selection of magazines on zinio, in an effort to get non geeks to go green by using zinio. (And of course, in an effort to get people to use zinio, to sell tons of email addresses, etc.)

Re:First Post!

[Anonymous Coward]

FAIL

Congress AND the President

[DragonWriter]

Congress is the one doing this, not the president.

Since the President has requested the action and, presumably, will sign the bill rather than vetoing it and having Congress attempt to override the veto, it is the President and Congress doing it; it is not "Congress , not the President".

House vote: 264-158

[Goobergunch]

The House vote on this, for those interested, was 264-158. The details of which representative voted which way is on the House website.

Re:House vote: 264-158

[Anonymous Coward]

That is nothing the Dem's haven't done for years. Yeah! High School Politics!!!

Re:House vote: 264-158

[plasmacutter]

That is nothing the Dem's haven't done for years. Yeah! High School Politics!!!

False.

In most votes on bush policy you had considerable support from the other side of the aisle.

The minute the situation is reversed the republicans pull this "not one vote, no matter what" crap.

This kind of "partisan for the sake of it" garbage is the reason why they continue to lose seats. Here's hoping they lose more and more each election until they learn being the opposition doesn't mean getting in the way for the sake of getting in the way.

The democrats were voted in overwhelmingly. This means the public wants what the democrats offered in their policy platforms. It's the republican's jobs to offer their perspective and grounding to that platform, not blindly rail against it tooth and nail.

This means instead of saying "no universal healthcare", they should be saying "If the public wants it, this is how it should work"

Re:House vote: 264-158

[Toonol]

Why aren't you mad at the Dems for being just as partisan?

Re:House vote: 264-158

[vijayiyer]

No, it is the job of each representative to represent their own district while upholding the Constitution. There are plenty of people who don't believe that the DTV transition should be delayed, or that we should have universal healthcare.

Re:House vote: 264-158

[JesusQuintana]

You missed the memo. Nothing is multi-dimensional or complex. There are ONLY two sides to every issue. And you have side with the home team.

Re:House vote: 264-158

[commodore64_love]

>>>I mean are the House Rep's voting against things just to go against the president,

You have it backwards. Normally the Democrats would have never supported this bill but because "their" guy named Obama pushed for the bill, they all blindly followed him. If you heard the speeches, a lot of the Democrats had no idea what they were voting for, but were just supporting the president.

Re:House vote: 264-158

[commodore64_love]

>>>The democrats were voted in overwhelmingly. This means the public wants what the democrats offered in their policy platforms. It's the republican's jobs to offer their perspective and grounding to that platform, not blindly rail against it tooth and nail.
>>>

Um. No. Your comment displays annoying arrogance, because MY republican representative won with a solid 80% majority. HIS job is to follow the wishes of us, his constituents, not your wishes. I am THRILLED that he voted "no" and if he keeps-up the good job, we'll give him another 80% majority in 2010!

As for partisanship, it was the Democrats who blindly followed Obama's wished to delay the transition. Most of them, based upon their speeches, had no clue what they were supporting! They were just lining-up behind their leader. ----- I think Obama's a smart man, but I think this particular idea was stupid. 95% of the populace is ready; there's no need to delay.

Re:House vote: 264-158

[n6kuy]

Well, 12.9% (23 out of 178) of the republicans voted YES
while only a measly 3.9% (10 out of 254) of the Democrats voted NO.

Sure seems like the Dems were a bit more partisan than the Reps.

Re:House vote: 264-158

[Arcady13]

Why would shit try to talk?

Re:House vote: 264-158

[limaxray]

Oh please, you have a serious case of revisionist history there Dwight. There were just as many votes along party lines when the Republicans were in power and that will always be the case; this is just the nature of a two party system. Personally, I see it more as a feature than a bug - a government going full steam ahead on every issue is not what you want if you value your rights and freedoms.

So quit being a partisan hack and accept the fact that the Republicans actually voted correctly for a change. There is absolutely no rational reason for the Democrats to vote the way they did other than to support President Obama because of his huge popularity. And don't try to tell me it was to help the poor masses get their TV - that is just crap and the numbers show it. Any logical person can see that moving this date back isn't helping anyone (other than maybe corporate interests) and is only going to add to the confusion.

You need to accept the fact that your guys are no better than their guys. They're just terrible in different ways.

Screw the protesters

[HornWumpus]

What are they going to do vote the head of the FCC out? (the FCC head is appointed).

People with time on their hands to protest are generally useless anyhow. The fact they haven't gotten it together to prepare for the switch reinforces that for me.

I hope they are going to compensate the new owners of the bandwidth for the delay.

Re:Screw the protesters

[JesusQuintana]

I'm sure that my fellow /.ers will correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe that the frequencies currently being used for analog television transmission have been auctioned yet. So, they don't yet have new owners which could be compensated. Additionally, the new owners of some of this spectrum is going to be local governments to use for first responders. They aren't paying for this spectrum, they're getting it for free...

Further, Congress can't vote the head of the FCC out. In fact, all FCC commissioners are confirmed by the senate. At this time, there is only an acting chairman, as former Chairman Martin was appointed by Bush and resigned when Obama took office. Obama's choice for FCC chairman has not yet been confirmed.

Most importantly, what would getting rid of the FCC chairman accomplish? Congress passed legislation to transition to digital TV and Congress set the first deadline. The FCC is only acting on Congress' wishes.

The question is: When are YOU going to vote out your elected representatives?

Re:Screw the protesters

[WiiVault]

People with time on their hands to protest are generally useless anyhow.

God I'm glad the founding fathers didn't hear you say that. I agree the argument you are making, but to blame protest is insane.

Re:Screw the protesters

[JesusQuintana]

How embarrassing... corrected by an AC. I did my research this time. The 700 MHz spectrum, which includes UHF TV channels 52-69 has been auctioned off to new licensees. Two caveats... only Full Power TV stations must cease broadcasting in this spectrum. Low Power TV stations and Translator stations don't have to stop. Theses stations have not yet been awarded digital channels. (Of course, they may never be awarded them.) So it is unclear how this will be resolved. Second, most of the Full Power stations don't operate in this spectrum anyway.

Aside from that I don't mind that wireless companies will be inconvenienced. Of course, they'll probably use this as an excuse to raise SMS fees again.

Re:Screw the protesters

[unitron]

Most of the frequencies, i.e., spectrum space, currently being used for analog television will be used for digital television, and will continue to be licensed, not auctioned.

Re:Screw the protesters

[commodore64_love]

>>>I don't believe that the frequencies currently being used for analog television transmission have been auctioned yet.

You're wrong! ;-) The analog channels 52 to 69 have already been leased, and the companies are gearing-up to begin testing their new wireless gadgets in March.

Re:Screw the protesters

[commodore64_love]

Most Low Power stations will do a flashcut directly from analog to digital, and they'll remain on the same channel.

Re:Screw the protesters

[commodore64_love]

>>>UHF TV channels 52-69..... most of the Full Power stations don't operate in this spectrum anyway.

Yes they do. Right now all the major networks in my market (Baltimore-Lancaster-Philadelphia) are broadcasting their DTV channels in the 52 to 69 range, because there was no room to put them anyplace else. After 2/17 they were supposed to move to the lower channels, so as to make room for new Wireless devices, but now nobody knows what will happen?

Re:Screw the protesters

[HornWumpus]

The founders would be shocked.

Shocked at the number of unproductive people we support.

In their day you had to give something up to protest (usually income, sometimes up to your life).

It naturally reserved 'protest' for important things.

Not things like getting cut off from a glass tit.

Buy lowering the cost of making a protest we have lowered it's value. Nobody cares if the usually fools are protesting AGAIN. I sure don't.

These days guys go to protests to pick up stupid, slutty chicks.

Didn't the state already auction this bandwidth?

[HornWumpus]

Are the new owners being compensated for the delay?

Were they even consulted?

Err...

[Urza9814]

The bill allows stations to cease analog transmissions at any point between Feb 17th (the old cutoff) and June 12th, and many have signaled they will do so.

Err, I should hope they _all_ signaled they will do so. They're required to by law, aren't they? I mean, what else are they going to do, cut off on Feb 12th? Or maybe June 23rd?

I think you meant to say 'and many have signaled they will wait.'

Re:Err...

[stars_are_number_1]

Actually, from the conversation I'm picking up on, many stations are planning on switching on Feb. 17.

Re:Err...

[Urza9814]

Yes. Which is between Feb 17th and June 23rd

In other news...

[RockMFR]

Trials for Gitmo prisoners delayed until they are no longer a threat to the United States.

Paying back the national debt delayed until someone can force us to do so.

Fixing social security delayed until Baby Boomers die.

Puppy for Obama children delayed until after the next election.

So tune in again...

[Chris Mattern]

...June 1, when they'll postpone it again!

Never going to happen

[PeterChenoweth]

Yes, and in May of 2009, Congress will realize that there are still 4.3 million people who aren't prepared. So they'll push it back to December of 2009. In November, due to 'economic hardship', we'll still have 3.8 million unprepared. So it'll get pushed back to May of 2010. In April of 2010, there will still be 2.9 million unprepared....

If the 6.5 million unprepared haven't figured out how to scrape together the $40 to buy a box by now, they're not ever going to do it. Not by now, not by June, not ever.

Please just kill it already!

[h4x354x0r]

It's the best way to expose the problems so they can be fixed (instead of hand-wringing and confusion). Glad to read that some stations are turning off analog anyway.

Its the networks who wanted this

[jonwil]

The real push for this was from those stations concerned about of a loss of ad revenue when their analog stations go dark and all of a sudden a whole bunch of people cant watch them anymore.

Those networks who think they can switch and not loose too many eyeballs will do so. Those who cant (e.g. those that know that lots of people in their transmission area don't have digital yet) will delay the switch-off until more people get digital boxes.

Democrats have nothing better to do

[Anonymous Coward]

They know that they have no clue about how to fix the economy, so they do this instead.

So vote for Democrats,
They are really swell;
They'll screw up the country,
And tax us to hell!
But you knew all that
When you voted for them.
It's because you hated Bush!

Re:Democrats have nothing better to do

[Zak3056]

So vote for Democrats,
They are really swell;
They'll screw up the country,
And tax us to hell!
But you knew all that
When you voted for them.
It's because you hated Bush

Burma-Shave!

Re:Democrats have nothing better to do

[smchris]

Some truth. I was already highly disappointed in co-sponsor Klobucher. If she isn't helping FISA to get voted on, she's messing with my TV. Don't know who to support next time.

I was surprised to see that one of our "higher channel numbers" (a rerun station that I think is affiliated with FOX) said it was going dark for three days soon to transfer over more than a week early. We'll see how that stands now. I guess that's my greatest hope -- the industry just ignores the new date.

[Pssst. Media Industry -- just think of them as linux users. You're used to ignoring a couple percent of users. They mean nothing. Trust me.]

They should just do it like a Band-Aid

[marshalium]

One motion! Right off!

a grateful public

[caldodge]

I'm sure R Gerard Salemme, AT&T, and Clearwire are very grateful for this decision.

I'm also sure they'll find some way to express that gratitude during the next Congressional campaign.

This shit right here

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

Is why America never went metric.

Re:This shit right here

[xous]

They did about 30 years ago. Nobody switched.

Re:This shit right here

[justinlee37]

That's not entirely true. I was born in 1987 as an American citizen, and all of my high school science classes used the metric system.

Re:This shit right here

[xous]

It was a joke. Laugh.

Re:This shit right here

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

It wasn't really a joke against American intelligence.

It was more a commentary about how the US Government assumes that the American people are stupid.

Money Confusion

[Ostracus]

"Shortages of converters meant a lot of people who did need the boxes couldn't get them before their coupon expired, then couldn't get a new one because the coupon program was out of money."

You left out a lot of the first adopter boxes were crap and featureless.

"Fix those problems, let the extra publicity for the issue reach the public, give it a few months, and we should find that far fewer people are still unprepared."

They could have done this like a rebate program.

Re:Money Confusion

[commodore64_love]

As an early adopter I want to correct some myths:

- Yes initially the boxes were rare, however by April 2008 the stores & online retailers were filled with tons of boxes. "I can't found one" is a pisspoor excuse.

- No the initial boxes were not crap. Zenith boxes were available as early as February 2008, and most folks at avsforum.com say it's the best box you can buy. People like me who bought a Zenith were not screwed.

- Right now stores are overflowing with boxes, and even so ~50% of coupon holders don't use them. Why are half of people applying for coupons they never intend to use? It makes no sense.

- Even without a coupon, you can buy a $40 box from dtvpal.com or a $50 box from Kmart. That's not much more expensive than taking the family to a restaurant, and if you can afford that, then you can afford a box.

- According to Nielsen, only 5% are unprepared and they are largely teens and 20-somethings who probably don't watch TV and therefore don't care. They are spending their dollars on new forms of entertainment like the internet.

Re:Money Confusion

[edcheevy]

When we applied (it may be different in the new bill), you could ask for two coupons. We have 1 TV but I asked for 2 coupons. Like any reasonable person, I tried to use both on one box (and was denied). Hey, worth a shot.

Then I asked my less-informed family members if they needed it (and explained why if they were truly uninformed). They didn't, so I let it expire. I would image a bunch of people took a similar approaches, hence the many unused coupons. We ended up getting a new TV this Christmas, so we didn't even really need the one we did use.

Re:Money Confusion

[commodore64_love]

That would explain the 50% non-redeem rate. Thanks. Me, I was the opposite. I got as many coupons as I could from friends, family, coworkers. We have a lot of TVs, VCRs, and DVRs, and therefore need lots of converter boxes. (Actually replace "need" with "want".) In total we had twelve coupons.

Before you ask, "Don't you feel guilty" the answer to that is: "Did Citibank or Nationsbank feel guilty about accepting 700 billion in taxpayer dollars?"

Re:Money Confusion

[Dazwin]

Before you ask, "Don't you feel guilty" the answer to that is: "Did Citibank or Nationsbank feel guilty about accepting 700 billion in taxpayer dollars?"

No, but neither will you be getting any more than $500k in your paycheck anytime soon.

Re:Money Confusion

[commodore64_love]

So I'm getting a 10 times raise? Sweet! ;-)

Re:Money Confusion

[doomsayerxero]

I applied for the coupons, between then and the time they arrived and I set out to buy one I just went and got an HD tv instead.
The idea of running a second piece of equipment to a tv with not nearly enough inputs, a seriously reduction in picture quality, and the drop in HD tv costs convinced me. I also figure a new LCD tv is more efficient than the old beast I was using.

Re:Money Confusion

[mzs]

Here what happened is that I heard about the troubles of the early people either never getting their coupons or when they got them stores still did not have converter boxes yet. So I waited until I saw converter boxes on the shelves. When I did I applied. Then I waited for the coupon to arrive. It took a long time and during that time all the converter boxes around me were sold. No new shipments were coming in. Then my coupon arrived and still there were no converter boxes available. I tried Target, RS, Walmart, BB, CC, and Sears. All said that after an initial shipment or two no more had come in. Then CC got a shipment in and I went to buy two, but they changed their price to $90 from the $60 they had been two months earlier. This was a pure profit, high demand, low supply, dirty thing to do. After all people would have a $40 coupon, so why not raises prices, they could say it is $10 less than it was two months ago.

I decided to wait a bit more. Then right before my coupons expired Sears got another shipment in and I bought two there. I feel that I was very careful but that there were serious distribution problems (for the coupons and boxes themselves) early on that caused problems for people.

I think that what would have been better was a simple box on income taxes that would let you reduce your income taxes by $40 or $80 dollars. Then people could simply buy the boxes when ever they were available. Other people could use the coupon program.

IDIOCY!!!

[cdrguru]

First off, if anyone was really worried about losing marketshare or advertising dollars, it is way, way too late to do anything about that now.

If you recall, they already sold off the spectrum. Sure, they can force new services to delay implementation for a while - but THEY SOLD OFF THE SPECTRUM. Analog television broadcasting is dead, and unless they are going to pay Verizon back their $700 million or so, it is really dead and really soon.

Sure, there is a substantial chance that a lot of people when faced with the decision to go to cable or satellite will chose "none of the above" because their rural location is underserved by DTV signals. Gosh, someone should have thought of that before. Guess what? I'd say they did and decided it was a small enough portion of the overall viewers that it doesn't matter what they do. If you aren't in a major metro area, chances are you are looking at either a much bigger antenna, cable or satellite. Or YouTube. I think you are going to see a lot of people outside of metro areas just turning the TV off and turning it on to play DVDs.

I don't see how any four-month "delay" that is optional is going to make much difference. This might have been a sap to a few stations trying to say they weren't ready, still. But there is no way this is going to help your average viewer - they are either ready or they are forgotten.

And the stupid coupon program isn't coming back either.

Re:IDIOCY!!!

[JesusQuintana]

They did not sell the spectrum. They licensed it. Air belongs to the people. You can't really own air. At least not yet.

Re:IDIOCY!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

The real idiots are the ones paying $50-100 for cable and still watching as many commericals as broadcast users.

Not childish!

[thule]

The Republicans probably want to see business starting to use the spectrum and getting rid of the redundancy of analog and digital transmissions. This would then create a new or exapand an existing segment of the economy -- creating jobs.

The Democrats are worried that a minority of people (poor, minorities, etc) will be oppressed by greedy businesses wanting to make use of the spectrum. People need to be protected from this greed. The government should hold their hand until they are able to veg out on the new digital transmissions.

See? Both sides are voting their conscience.

Re:Not childish!

[commodore64_love]

According to Nielsen the "minority" is only 5%. The other 95% are ready for the analog shutdown. Why wait???

Re:Not childish!

[afidel]

That spectrum isn't going to be used by June, heck it isn't going to be used for at LEAST another couple years given todays capital markets. My guess is the real reason for the delay is so they can reallocate funds into the rebate program for the ~3M households who got left out in the first round. Even if I'm wrong this isn't big government mandating anything, it's the government allowing the current licensees of the spectrum to continue to serve their customers for a bit longer if the choose!

Bullshit

[SuperKendall]

The stations are all pretty much switching anyway.

Some mythical loss of advertising does not offset the costs already incurred to do the switch, nor the extra power to run the older transmitters.

There may be a few outliers here and there, but it's not "The Networks".

Re:Bullshit

[Toonol]

Mythical? It's a certainty. The viewers before the switch > viewers after.

Re:Bullshit

[zippthorne]

50kW * 18 cents per kWh ~ 80 thousand dollars per year.

Or.. the cost of ONE weather girl (when you factor in benefits).

That might be a lot in some markets, but it's really a pittance in most.

Re:Bullshit

[tweak13]

50 kW is a tiny TV transmitter. Try 1000-1500 kW for a more realistic value for an analog UHF station, 300+ kW for an analog VHF station. There's a station in my area running more than 3000 kW for their analog transmitter. Also, those values are radiated power and don't take into account inefficiency in the transmitter, add at least another 30% to get closer to actual power consumption.

BetaNews' brief transcript of Congress debating...

[antdude]

See here: http://www.betanews.com/article/House_votes_to_delay_DTV_transition_President_likely_to_sign/1233764370

http://www.rabbitears.info/dtr.php and http://www.rabbitears.info/termlist.php for analog termination and digital switch.

And I need to get a new antenna since KABC did its test this morning after 2 AM PST for 15 minutes. I could not get KABC's digital 7 with two rescan attempts. I was told my DB2 bowtie antenna cannot do low channels at all. :(

Re:Didn't the state already auction this bandwidth

[krbvroc1]

Yes and yes. If you watched any of the 'debate' on the House floor, just about all the stakeholders wrote letters buying in to the delay.

Re:Didn't the state already auction this bandwidth

[Mr. Slippery]

Are the new owners being compensated for the delay?

Let's be clear: the owners of the wireless spectrum used for broadcast in the U.S. are the people of the United States.

The coupons for free converters are part of the compensation being given us by broadcasters in return for changes in the lease granted them by our representative, the United States Congress.

Not as simple as it sounds

[Zhiroc]

I wasn't very keen on the delay (and offhand, I don't know how effective it will be anyways). But there's something that hasn't been discussed much. As I was reading this article, I've learned that it's not just the tuner. Some people may have to change their antenna. The DTV switch moves the signal to the UHF bands, and if you have experience with broadcast TV, you'll know that UHF does not have the range of VHF, and needs a special antenna (a "bow-tie" if I remember) to get the best reception. February is a terrible time to have to go up on a roof in the north... So, I can see some merit in the delay. Even with a better antenna, it could be that no reception is possible for some rural customers, which is a whole different issue.

Re:Not as simple as it sounds

[/dev/trash]

Yep. Unless you live within 20 miles of the big cities, you're not gonna get ANYTHING without a new outdoor rotating antenna.

Re:Not as simple as it sounds

[zippthorne]

The benefit of UHF, though, is that you can get away with a smaller antenna. The way most stations are co-located now, you can get almost all of your programming with one directional antenna.

The shorter wavelengths of UHF means that you can get more gain or use a smaller antenna.

Whoever told you need a special shape like a bowtie was trying to sell you something. Those designs do work, but their improvement over a simple dipole, loop, or yagi are dubious. In fact, I've had great success with just a good set of rabbit ears (including subschannels, i've got about 3x the number of channels I had before, and the picture is perfect most of the time)

If you've already got an aerial, you ought to be fine. If you're trying to make due with an indoor antenna, I submit that this is probably overkill in most areas (don't bother with amplified unless you've got multiple tvs off the same feed) A VHF antenna with the same gain simply wouldn't fit indoors at all.

Also note that if you're having difficulty, you might be able to solve your problem without changing the antenna. For one thing, all tuners are not equal, though I've no idea how to pick one that is better. Something you can change though, is to make sure your antenna is properly grounded. The outer sheath on the coax, the one that's connected to the outer threads, should be connected to a proper earth ground. Copper plumbing works in a pinch, but you should really have a dedicated ground rod driven into the earth. You could probably use house ground (note: not neutral. You'll start a fire or something ) for this also.

Re:Not as simple as it sounds

[Dr.Zong]

Ok, here's my take as a Canadian trying to pickup American stations and Canadian ones as well (who just spent the better part of last night up on the frigging ladder in -20C weather trying to get his damn preamp going)...

Bowtie is the way to go. Channel Master 4221 for suburban/urban areas and 4228 if you're out farther. The latter is more directional and doesn't pickup the side lobes as well. I'm 35Km from downtown toronto (20 miles or so), and much farther from buffalo and rochester NY. With a 4221 I can aim just west of Buffalo and pickup nbc/abc/cbs in full HD glory. My side lobes pickup downtown toronto and rochester.

The poster who pointed out a silver sensor... no good for anyone outside say 15 miles or so. I got one as a freebie when I picked up my samsung hd converter (I only have an hd ready crt projection tv)... he gets... nothing on his brand new 6th generation atsc chipset tv. Well, not nothing, but very little. He gets some of the toronto stations and can barely pull in NBC from buffalo. I ended up gifting him my old 4221 clone for the superbowl, and now he gets most of the stations I get, but is still missing out on some toronto stations.

So, I can say from experience, that the bowtie is the way to go. Which one depends on how far you're trying to "reach" out into the ether.

I can pull in Fox, CBC and CTV with a frigging paper clip attached to my antenna port. The rest, need a better antenna and sometimes even a preamp like in my case. I even tried building a gray-hoverman, and while it was OK, it was far too rickety to put outside. I tried those RCA loop/rabbit ear antennas amped and not... no good whatsoever unless you live right near the transmitter.

Up here we don't need to worry about VHF HI, so the bowtie works fine. But those old huge antennas still work... as long as they are rated for UHF and not VHF (or also VHF if you need VHF HI).

A yagi is great, but is far too directional for most applications... even on a rotor... most of the new boxes and tv's need to be rescanned every time you move it... annoying and takes 2 minutes or so. Good luck using that as a selling feature ;)

My other neighbour has one of those big antennas on a rotor, and his reception is piss poor and it's rated for UHF. The problem is... UHF goes less distance, but is better at getting around objects blocking your path. In his case, we;ve upgraded all the cabling, but it's proably his 4th gen converter box... the newer 5th and 6th gen chipsets have much better mutipath interference rejection which is essential for uhf, and can also work with weaker signals.

Long story short - people WILL need new antennas depending on where they live, and yes, going up a pole requires some scary freezing cold cojones in the winter. I've been doing it for the past few days tweaking my setup and let me tell you... it's not fun. As much as I am not affected by the american switch (aside from reception hopefully getting better once the analog stuff stops interfering - I hope) - this switch will let those in colder climates hopefully NOT have to get up on the roof in this weather.

And, I don't have cable nor satellite. Been free of those expenses for a year or so now.

Re:Not as simple as it sounds

[TheSync]

The DTV switch moves the signal to the UHF bands

This is not precisely true. While some major network VHF will move to UHF, many will not. In Las Vegas, for example the final post-transition DTV channel for all major networks will remain VHF. In Washington, DC, NBC and FOX are moving form analog VHF to UHF, but ABC and CBS will remain on VHF for DTV post-transition.

What is definitely happening with regards to frequencies is that all UHF channels above 51 will be vacated for spectrum auction winners.

So clearly if you have been a VHF-only receive antenna, you will probably also need a UHF capability to continue to receive the same stations.

More info final DTV channels here.

Re:Not as simple as it sounds

[CharlieKotan]

The antenna problem is going to affect mostly rural viewers. An interesting thing is that most of the Digital Super-Whamadyne Antannas have the same UHF yagi as they've had for years. Getting a new antenna may not help much, unless they do some research.

Most outside antennas have a pre-amplifier at the antenna that is powered in the house. If that preamp has died or the power is no longer getting up the coax or twinlead to the amp, the DTV signal is going to be awful. Suggest that folks check that out before getting a new system.

You can be sure that Fred's TV and Gizmo will cheerfully come out, remove all of the mostly good stuff to haul to the landfill, and replace with all new stuff at about $300 - $500, including installation.

If the homeowner is unlucky, all that wandering around on the roof and poking holes will destroy the roof, which can be replaced for a mere $10,000.

Keep your fingers crossed for your non-cable and non-satellite friends. Advise caution.

Re:Way to waste my tax $$

[JesusQuintana]

First, I'm not sure the state of the economy should preclude people (including Congress) from addressing other issues. Obviously it is a priority and something that Congress can and should address, but it's not like they have some magic wand that's going to instantly eliminate our challenges.

Second, how is this a waste of your tax dollars?

Too late for Hawaii

[Shag]

Stations in Hawaii switched on January 15, so as to have their old towers torn down before the start of the mating season of an endangered seabird. So this won't make any difference for those of us in the 808 state.

Because the airwaves belong to the public

[dpbsmith]

The state is involved in this because the airwaves belong to the public, not to the television stations. You cannot own a chunk of the electromagnetic spectrum any more than you can own the musical note "middle C." Spectrum is licensed, not sold.

The switch to digital benefits the commercial interests that get to use the freed-up spectrum, and it hurts the existing viewers that are watching analog broadcast signals over an antenna. So part of the deal was that the people who benefit would pay to make up for the cost and inconvenience to the people hurt by it.

That sounds perfectly fair to me.

The FCC is involved because they administer the use of the public airwaves.

Re:Because the airwaves belong to the public

[agm]

While the airwaves belong to the public, the transmitting equipment used to broadcast on those airwaves belong to private companies. This is the state telling those private companies what they can broadcast.

just dandy

[Tjaden]

I get my new TV the day _after_ the Superbowl, and I didn't even need it anyway...

Re:just dandy

[Nimey]

Bah, the local station playing the Super Bowl was analog and standard-definition, and me with my new 42" HDTV. They haven't yet bothered switching their digital transmitter on.

Power to digital stations will be...

[stardestroyer]

So what will the power level to digital stations be between February and June? AFAIK, now all-digital stations are only broadcasting at 60(?)% of power so as to not interfere with analog transmissions in nearby ranges. Does this bill mean digital stations will be at 100% in June only, or in February, or they will trickle in turn up the power?

Re:Power to digital stations will be...

[tweak13]

That's a question you'd have to answer by looking at FCC filings for the stations in your area because every area will be different. Every change to their transmission, like power increases, requires an updated filing so you can be sure that if a station changes anything, they'll do it all at once. As far as current power levels, many stations are moving digital to an old analog frequency after the change, others may increase power a bit, some are already running the exact digital configuration they'll use post transition. Every station's situation is different.

In my area, one station has been at 100% digital power for a long time. When they switch, they'll just turn off the analog transmitter. Every other station here is moving their digital signal into their old analog frequency, resulting in massive power reductions for them. Of course the changes in how VHF propagates compared to UHF means they'll actually have better digital signal than they do now, even with the massively reduced power.

I'd check a site like tvfool.com to check out what plans for the stations in your area are pre and post-transition.

Re:Didn't the state already auction this bandwidth

[zippthorne]

Damn it. I had mod points yesterday. I'd really like to know what the answer to this question is.

Re:H-Day?

[smchris]

Sweden changed the entire country from driving on the left to the right in one day.

Be a little confusing to do odd streets one day/even streets the next, don't you think?

Delay...

[clong83]

I for one welcome the delay. I have a converter box and most of the time I find myself using the analog signal. Why? Because I only seem to get one channel on the digital signal, while with analog I can get most of them even if they're a bit grainy.

Oh yeah, I live in a downtown metropolitan area, so this "it's only the rural people" is total bunk as far as I'm concerned. But I'm just one lonely data point....

Too late for Hawaii, Fine By Me

[cmholm]

In particular, they wanted the old antenna down before the nesting time for an endangered seabird at the 9500' level on Haleakala. As goes Maui, so goes the rest of 808. Naturally, we've got some mainland transplants on Maui moaning, who not only relocated from the mainland to Hawaii, but with malice of forethought bought places out half way out to Hana.

Now that the Maui antenna is down at the 4000' antenna farm in Ulupalakua, there's a few miles of solid basalt that's attenuating their signal a tad, and these people are complaining. Why wasn't it put further up the mountain, they whine. Because a 300' mast looks like shit that high up on the ridge line, in a primitive area.

The more the island looks like shit, the fewer the visitors to spend money... which would prolly be just fine for the M$/Boeing/trustfund scumbags who loaded up their truck and moved to Hawai'i. Islands, that is. Mango trees, technology.

You understand nothing

[SuperKendall]

Mythical? It's a certainty. The viewers before the switch > viewers after.

And what makes you so certain that people on the edge of deciding if cable are worthwhile will not switch back to OTA now that it's all digital?

I did just that a few years back.

You don't know how to consider longer term implications the way studios do, nor do you have the foggiest just how high the uptake will be after the switchover is official. People who really want TV, will get TV.

Re:You understand nothing

[Toonol]

Because those people have already switched. Digital isn't 'turning on', it's been on for ages. The transition only involves analog going away.

Plus, switching off cable now entails the purchase of a $50 set-top box for most people, in order to receive OTA digital signals.

Re:Didn't the state already auction this bandwidth

[SydShamino]

The fed has altered the deal. Pray they don't alter it further.

Re:Way to waste my tax $$

[n6kuy]

Yep.
More government and taxpayer dollars is what'll fix everything.

Re:IDIOCY!!! And still no "public file" ONLINE

[myspace-cn]

I would rather not be bombarded by the DTV readiness commercials when I am receiving a fucking DTV/ATSC signal already.

And look how fast congress acts on this, but hey if you want something like say, forcing stations to make their "public file" available for comment ONLINE so that when they lie, spin, and blacklist the public can deny them the right to renew their station license and frequency allocation.

So the fascist corporate news continues. And the public will be brainwashed as always with no idea they could hold them responsible.

And this surprises whom?

[CPNABEND]

I am seeing five to ten ADs per day for the cutover, and I only watch TV about two or three hours per night. My question: If you don't watch enough TV to know there is going to be NO TV, will you know your TV doesn't work when it stops? BTW, How many people do not have cable, AND have not used the coupons for (relatively) FREE converters?

Re:And this surprises whom?

[whimmel]

The coupon is a lie. It makes a $20 device cost $55.

...great disturbance...

[hack slash]

There will be a great disturbance in the US, as if millions of pocket tvs will cry out in white noise terror and suddenly be put away in a drawer never to be used again.

What I don't understand

[the_arrow]

What I don't understand is why it has to be done all at once? Why not do a rolling switchover? Switch a few transmitters at a time. This also makes it much easier to weed out problems, that can be solved much earlier. Worked very well for Sweden. And before anyone complains that Sweden and the USA can't be compared, remember it's just a question of scale. When Sweden switched two or three transmitters to digital at a time, the USA have to do twenty or thirty. Still better than to switch everyone at once, IMHO.

Re:What I don't understand

[w9wi]

One could argue that the USA did do a gradual switchover. A series of deadlines were set for stations to begin digital transmission. The largest cities were required to begin digital first, gradually rolling to the smaller communities. The station I work for has been broadcasting a digital signal since 2002. Viewers could have begun buying digital receivers years ago. (and many did.) What was supposed to happen in two weeks was the final shutdown of the analog transmitters. (do note that in the USA common transmitter sites are relatively rare. (by comparison to European countries) Here in Nashville, there are eight different transmitter sites serving 13 stations. That situation is not unusual. It's not a matter of converting one site from analog to digital and being done with it.)

Re:What I don't understand

[TheSync]

What I don't understand is why it has to be done all at once? Why not do a rolling switchover?

Ratings. If you are suddenly the only non-analog station in your market, you may end up looking very bad in comparison to the other stations.

Many stations have already applied to the FCC for early analog turn-off, and some have even turned off analog already, but not major commercial network stations in major DMAs.

Eco disaster

[AlHunt]

I'm surprised the environmental crowd isn't mounting an insurrection. According to the eetimes website http://www.eetimes.com/news/semi/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=212901071 there are 33.5 million of these converter boxes shipped with another 9 million in the pipeline. The box listed here - http://www.ezdigitaltv.com/Channel_Master_CM-7000.html, draws 8 watts when it's on and 2 when it's off.

All those millions of watts squandered while people are stomping their feet, demanding that I unplug my sub 1-watt cell phone charger to save the environment.

I know, digital transmission supposedly uses less power then analog. Still, one transmission tower versus how many converter boxes?

Hulu anyone...

[lamapper]

I have been absolutely amazed at what you can watch via Hulu.com. Most TV Series keep the last 3 or 5 episodes on that site as well as their own website. The video codecs are as good on hulu as they are on Youtube, so the video usually streams without too many interruptions.

Thanks to Linux, one day I will have a DVD Recorder/Player on steroids and watch almost all my TV and movies via the Internet, that is the future and the ISPs know it.

All I want from my ISP is reliable available bandwidth (equivalent to what they have in other parts of the world... say 100MB / 100MB or 1Gbps / 1Gpbs for around $50 per month) with Net Neutrality, no throttling, censoring or forging of RST packets to stop my communications. Give me bandwidth or give me some other ISP.

In fact when it hiccups, I check the bandwidth logs via my DD-WRT software enabled router / firewall and I see that my ISP has throttled me back more severely than normal. In many cases lower than 200Kbps.

My ISP throttles every communication, every time, all day, 24/7...it is getting so old. Prior to them throttling, my Quality of Service (QoS) settings ALWAYS prevented my Skype VoIP software from being interrupted. Since they have started throttling, my Skype calls get interrupted a few times each month...about the same rate as my cell phones use to drop calls back in the day. For the last three - four years I have been cell phone and monthly fee to cellular companies FREE.

So even if Skype drops, which it never did in the past, pre throttle days, I will NOT switch from them. Rather I will look for a more reliable ISP and churn.

Re:Way to waste my tax $$

[Khan]

Where do you think the salary for Congress comes from.....the tooth fairy?

It's a waste of our tax $$'s that they spent so much of their time debating and passing this law INSTEAD of working on issues that actually matter! In the big picture of our current economic environment, this should have been a non-issue.

You people that let your coupons expire..

[StrifeJester]

Seriously people if you buy anything and you don't take advantage of the rebate by the time it expires too fucking bad. I am so sick of whiny /. ers complaining because they let their coupon expire. This community is supposed to be people that get technology and should have been on the edge of it. The first thing the coupon program should do is take all the names on the list that are people who were already shipped a coupon and daily move them to the back of the line. Here's an idea, go buy a new cell phone pay 300 bucks for it sign a 2 year deal and then piss and moan because you were too lazy to mail in the 200 dollar rebate. See how far that gets you. I hope just to piss off the government and the stupid 5% of the population that all the broadcasters switch anyways. Then let the government sit there and explain why even though the date was pushed back nobody's tv fuckin works

Said it before...

[neowolf]

What a load of crap...

The same sorry/lazy/whatever idiots who are unprepared for this now will be unprepared for it in June as-well. I have no sympathy for these people at all, and it's nice to know the new administration will still pander to the weakest link... (For the record- I actually like Obama, but this is sad.)

Re:Didn't the state already auction this bandwidth

[Golias]

The fed has altered the deal. Pray they don't alter it further.

You win at the Internet.

Thats Static for Grandma

[Antonius1234563]

I'm pretty sure my grandma's TV will go from Matlock to static no matter what day its on.