Slashdot Mirror


DTV Converters In Short Supply

Ponca City, We Love You writes with a New York Times story saying there could be a shortage of DTV converter boxes in addition to the problem with coupons. "At the current rate of coupon redemption, 115,000 per day, plus sales without coupons, that means the current stock of converters could be sold out by the end of this month. So what would have happened if the whole digital transition worked the way it was supposed to? Many of those 3.7 million people would be marching into their local Radio Shack and Best Buy stores trying to buy converter boxes next weekend right before the scheduled cutoff on Feb. 17. And if the electronics association's numbers are right, the boxes would have sold out." Good thing the extended cut-off date was approved.

35 of 192 comments (clear)

  1. DTV Shopping list by Centurix · · Score: 5, Funny

    1. Campaign to promote DTV - Check
    2. DTV Transmission 'stuff' - Check
    3. 250 million DTV receivers - FAIL

    --
    Task Mangler
    1. Re:DTV Shopping list by repvik · · Score: 5, Insightful

      One in the kitchen, one in the bedroom and one in the livingroom. One in every waiting room, a couple at the office, a few at school etc.

    2. Re:DTV Shopping list by The+Dobber · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The majority of which are hooked up to cable networks.

    3. Re:DTV Shopping list by Comtraya · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because TV stations still have the option to shut down their analog after February 17, and many are going to do that because running both an analog and digital transceiver is expensive.

    4. Re:DTV Shopping list by siriuskase · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Did you know that more people have cats than dogs? I have a cat, but she doesn't watch TV. She prefers NPR. She's listening to the MET at the moment.

      If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interesting.

      --
      If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
  2. Why are we going in debt over CONVERTER BOXES? by WarJolt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's just a little piece that contributes to the greater problem.
    Somewhere along the way the government decided that television is a right and not a privilege. In every other type of technology when standards change and equipment has to be upgraded the consumer pays for it.

    I've heard the argument that the increased ad revenue makes the cost worth it(not sure if this is accurate) so why isn't the television companies paying for it? Plus it's not the guys who can't afford a $40 box that networks are advertising to.

    I can't think of a good reason why future generations of this country are going to pay for our television today.

    1. Re:Why are we going in debt over CONVERTER BOXES? by WarJolt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Buying everyone a radio is cheaper than buying everyone a converter box.

    2. Re:Why are we going in debt over CONVERTER BOXES? by Idimmu+Xul · · Score: 5, Insightful

      TV, like radio, is a way to get news out quickly to the population.

      News like people have to get off their fat asses before a certain date to get a DTV converter, else they'll no longer get TV?

      --
      The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
    3. Re:Why are we going in debt over CONVERTER BOXES? by sahonen · · Score: 5, Informative

      The total cost of issuing the coupons for converter boxes is FAR less than the total amount of money raised by the government by selling off the spectrum formerly used by analog TV. The government actually made a profit on this deal.

      --
      Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
    4. Re:Why are we going in debt over CONVERTER BOXES? by arkhan_jg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Somewhere along the way the government decided that television is a right and not a privilege.

      Because the public still owns the right to the airwaves. The TV companies are leasing the public's property, as negotiated by the government.

      By switching to digital transmission, significant amount of spectrum are freed up for other wireless purposes. Quite a bit of this spectrum is already leased out to new users once it's freed up. The government gets quite a bit of money out of this, on behalf of the public.

      Given the incovenience caused by this change in use, and the profit made by doing so, it's hardly unreasonable for the government to give some small amount of the profit made back to the public to mitigate the impact of the change.

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
    5. Re:Why are we going in debt over CONVERTER BOXES? by gallwapa · · Score: 3, Funny

      No no no, you missed his point. He is saying get LIVE TV for free using an antenna and you'll never go back to analog or cable. Duh. ;-)
      English rocks.

    6. Re:Why are we going in debt over CONVERTER BOXES? by drsmithy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You mean the government has seized the rights to the airwaves. We public own nothing. Don't believe me? Try setting up a transmitter with any serious wattage -- even on an open frequency -- without a license and watch what happens to you.

      It wrinkles my feathers big time whenever the government claims something is "public", and yet the public has little control or voice over it. "Public" schools. "Public" airwaves. "Public" roads, etc.

      "Public" doesn't mean "you", it means "everyone".

    7. Re:Why are we going in debt over CONVERTER BOXES? by arkhan_jg · · Score: 4, Informative

      Indeed - by setting up a transmitter of significant wattage, you're depriving everybody else in the public the use of that particular frequency. You're only one member of the public, and the rest of us get to have consideration too. Try looking up the 'tragedy of the commons' sometime.

      You get to use the frequency exclusively by paying the licence fee, thus compensating the rest of the public for their loss. That money goes back to the government, and ultimately (at least in principle) benefits all the public - including yourself. Yes, you get back much less than you put in as an individual; but with exclusive use of the frequency, the benefit you get is that much higher also.

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
    8. Re:Why are we going in debt over CONVERTER BOXES? by timholman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Am I depriving the community? Or providing a service? If no one was using that frequency anyway, who cares?

      How do you know no one is using the frequency? What if a licensed low power station 100 miles away is using it? You can't hear it, but when you put your pirate transmitter on the air, suddenly you're interfering with his signal. He paid the licensing fees for that spectrum. What are you doing to his rights to use the airwaves?

      Thank goodness we don't have to license our websites. I can reach a far greater number of people with my websites than I ever could with a transmitter. And yeah, I am "depriving" others the use of the domain names I've acquired.

      Wrong analogy. Internet bandwidth is essentially limitless - all you have to do is install the extra fiber and cables. The same with domain names - even at the peak of domain name squatting, no one ever had difficulties thinking of a new name and registering it.

      The public airwaves represent a limited set of resources that must be shared by potentially millions of people at the same time. You can't "add" to the spectrum as needed. It has to be regulated, or it will be worthless.

      I would do with the airwaves what I do with my websites -- provide free information, free commentary, and the like. The "benefit" to me is not described in terms of money, but in being able to make a tiny difference in the world I live in, which, in theory at least, should benefit all.

      And what if I then decide that I want to squat on top of your frequency with my bigger transmitter, and provide my own news, commentary, information, etc.? What then? Do we duel it out in the streets? Gather our respective gangs of anarchists and take axes to each others' equipment?

      A world of people who thought like you, and who each felt they had the "right" to use the airwaves as they saw fit, would make the electromagnetic spectrum completely useless. You'd have nothing but 24/7 jamming, interference, and constant battles as everyone tried to outshout each other with bigger transmitters.

      Sorry, but when it comes to the public spectrum, you have to have government regulation, else you will have nothing but anarchy and waste.

    9. Re:Why are we going in debt over CONVERTER BOXES? by Overzeetop · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, for one, I'm self employed, and have been for six years. I went back to school and got a degree which allows me to provide "mainstream" services, instead of the highly-specific aerospace engineering I originally went to school for. I live below my means, so if I ran out of work tomorrow I wouldn't be in that bad a situation. But that's all beside the point...

      People prefer TV over radio because it is more entertaining to the average user - the TV was most certainly not invented to advance the ability to convey emergency information. The only potential advantage it has for public safety is the viewing of maps for affected areas. Of course, given the quality of graphics on an NTSC screen of the size and age TV we're concerned about, an audible list of counties is just as accurate. No, there's no advantage of TV over radio in public safety announcements. Quite the opposite, a radio does not even need to be in the same room as the listener, as there is no dependence on visual information. It is also far more common to have a battery- or dynamo-powered radio than a TV, and many disasters require information be broadcast after the public electric grid has been compromised (broadcasters generally have very robust backup generation capabilities).

      The roof thing is a red herring. You do know that nearly all of the stations will be broadcasting from the exact same location as they currently are, and that roof antennas designed to pick up the typical UHF/VHF signals will be accurately aligned before and after the transition? I'm not aware of a common roof mounted antenna more than 10 years old which does not pick up UHF.

      I maintain that the force behind the delay are the networks. They have a captive audience in these late-adopters (no cable, no sat, no ATSC), and don't want to lose eyeballs in the middle of the TV season. By pushing the rollout back to June the switch will hit during reruns, when ad revenues and eyeballs are lower anyway. To lose viewership in the money making portion of the year scares the shit out of them.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  3. Scalpers are stifled by nickruiz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Too bad for you if you were a scalper planning on making some quick bucks. I bet we would've seen DTV converters selling like Wiis on eBay with 150%+ markups.

  4. Good thing? by macraig · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "... And if the electronics association's numbers are right, the boxes would have sold out." Good thing the extended cut-off date was approved.

    I'd wager that there's a statistically significant number of those procrastinators who are now gonna simply procrastinate until June, so that there will still be a tidal wave of demand, just delayed a few months. The delay might help and motivate some people to get off their asses, but not all.

    And hell, if the shelves really get emptied, well, I probably won't need one of mine by then so that will be one less desperate family.

    1. Re:Good thing? by sahonen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you ask me, the procrastinators deserve a time out from TV if they've been too lazy to get off their butts and get ready for something that's been planned for years and heavily advertised for months. Let em watch static until they can get a converter, the radio will work fine if there's an emergency.

      --
      Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
    2. Re:Good thing? by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yup yup. I think the analog stations should shut down their broadcasts, perhaps starting at an hour at a time, then perhaps a whole day, putting up a message about digital converters instead of their regularly scheduled show. Not only would this alert otherwise oblivious people, but it would specifically target only those who need converters.

    3. Re:Good thing? by dbcad7 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Since the extension is not a requirement, many stations will shut down analog anyway. Now it might not be all of them.. but all it takes is one network that has something that people will miss, and the procrastinators will get off their butts.. For example, in my area, the ABC station stopped their analog early.. damned if I didn't hit the store the next day to get a box. Main reason was because Lost was about to start up the new episodes, and of course I needed it anyway.

      Like everyone else, I knew a lonnng time ago I needed it.. and I even got coupons.. but then I let them expire.. my bad.. so I ended up footing the bill myself.. but it's done.. and mainly because of the early shutdown by ABC. I am pretty sure that well over 90 percent of the people that need the boxes will have them way before June, and that was entirely too long of an extension.. people would get what they need, or adapt by buying cable or Satellite if there was a box shortage.

      --
      waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
  5. Re:TV is fine the wait it is now. by sahonen · · Score: 4, Informative

    Because the spectrum has already been sold to companies that were promised they'd be allowed to use it as of February 17th. Delaying the cutoff means these businesses have to put their plans on hold. We're talking millions in lost revenue.

    Also, TV stations currently have to maintain both digital and analog broadcasting towers. The power bill for even one tower is insane, let alone two, and the additional cost of maintaining two towers for longer than anticipated can be crippling for stations who already have tight margins due to decreased ad revenue. And no, we're not talking about corporate conglomerates like Disney and GE (owners of ABC and NBC), the majority of TV stations are locally owned and operated and pay the networks for affiliation.

    --
    Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
  6. Re:this isn't a good year for this by Overzeetop · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Perhaps they should turn off the TV and either work on their resume and start networking, or go learn a new trade. I've yet to be convinced how watching network TV will re-employ several million jobseekers.

    As for the emergency services and weather and news, might I suggest a radio? Since most bedside alarm clocks have one, I would be surprised to find that their rate of adoption is less than TVs. Further, for the millions upon millions with a handheld radio, they tend to work far better than your average TV when there is an actual weather emergency as they don't require the local power grid to be functioning.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  7. 10 years isn't long enough? by Overzeetop · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's how long the transition has been going on. The "turn off date" was several years ago. This extension is nothing new for those who have any clue about these things. Imagine how many people outside of IT would be surprised that BASIC is no longer a mainstream learning language. (To which 90% of the population would reply "what's a language, I turn my computer on and it does stuff")

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  8. My DTV converter doesn't work very well by HangingChad · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I got my coupons and converters already, for the two TV's that aren't on satellite. They don't work very well. We lose two of our local stations that look fine in analog, but apparently not enough digital signal to show up in the converter box scan. They'll show up on the digital TV downstairs but not on the DTV converters.

    So far I'm not impressed.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:My DTV converter doesn't work very well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      FYI some stations aren't yet transmitting their digital signal at full power, or at their desired frequency, because the analog bandwidth has not been freed up yet.

      E.g. in NYC, I can only get the (crappy) analog signal of WNET, since their digital signal is currently very low power. I heard that after the transition, they will be dropping analog (obviously) and upping the power of their digital signal.

      -T

  9. Re:Where's my BlueRay player coupon? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    WTF does this have to do with Democrats? Nothing.

    This transition is happening all over the world, not just in the U.S. Do you suppose also that the Democrats have control over the rest of the world? If so, you're a crackpot.

    Even if you suppose that the DTV transition in the U.S. is some Democratic party conspiracy unrelated to the DTV transition everywhere else in the world, you'd still be wrong. The Congressional Act that created the transition was the Digital Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005. That was passed with a Republican majority in Congress and a Republican in the White House.

    So all you Republicans going "this is Democratic Party Liberal Socialism" need to take a long look in the mirror, because YOU voted for it.

  10. Can't help but think that... by DreadfulGrape · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...if millions of people were to suddenly be forced to go without TV for a while, it would improve the collective mental health of the U.S. ... maybe just a bit.

    --
    sig has been sent away for a few small repairs...
  11. Re:TV is fine the wait it is now. by echucker · · Score: 2, Informative

    Local stations are still in better shape than public broadcasting stations. With recession-induced government funding, it's even harder for them to maintain dual broadcast formats until June. During the fund raising drive over the last 3 days, my local PBS station said it'll cost them an extra 60k in operating costs to broadcast in both analog and digital.

  12. Good thing? by seanmeister · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Good thing the extended cut-off date was approved.

    Bullshit - the original cut-off date was advertised for years. Anyone who's affected by the transition and *still* isn't ready for it should probably be watching less TV.

  13. Re:F*&K those people.. by speedlaw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, they will. I once worked in a very large building complex (Starrett City, NY in Brooklyn). I was often assigned to answer the phone for maintenance-clogged toilets, leaky faucets, etc. One day, the Cable TV provider (there was one company for the whole complex) had to do some work, which shut off CATV to the entire complex. We NEVER got so many angry, screaming calls-repeatedly. I don't think a loss of Hot Water would cause so much angst. I'll never forget the day I had eight hours of every single shut-in, or elderly, or mom at home with kids and no soaps, call me over and over. (No maam, I don't know when the cable guys will be done...yes I'm sorry...have a good day) YOU may have four internet connections, get TV via Bittorrent, and run OSX on your Netbook, but for a lot of folks, the on/off switch and the channel selector are all they run. Don't think what comes out, even if pure crap, is not important to those folks.

  14. I don't get the issue here by DrXym · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Televisions have included digital tuners for years. DTV boxes are cheap and plentiful. If somebody at this late stage hasn't bothered to either redeem a coupon or take the massive $40 hit to buy the decoder box after years of warnings, then tough shit. At worst it only means waiting a couple of days for a store to get new stock in. I swear that some people will never be ready for anything and you've just got to set a cutoff and stick to it. If people still manage to ignore the warning and get their service cutoff then its their own fault.

  15. DVB-T by muftak · · Score: 2, Informative

    Maybe America should have used DVB-T like the rest of the world, where there is no shortage of set top boxes, and they are about half the price of ATSC ones. Instead they have to be difficult and use their own standard again.

  16. Convert Coupons = China Subsidy by fluffy99 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    First, the coupons were not handled well. I submitted for two online, never got them in the mail, and now it won't let me apply for them again as they expired. Lots of other folks around me said the same thing. Second, these mass-produced crappy converter boxes should not cost $40. They're all made in China and would normally retail for around $9 each. So the bribe money that the Govt is giving its citizens to convert is simply flowing out the door to China. Yeah, the govt is making a profit by selling the spectrum but its also money down the toilet by buying low quality converters from China. Figure 250 million converters at $30 profit each is about 7.5 billion. BTW, most folks don't realize those converter boxes are not going to give you any better quality or hi-def. In fact they're more likely to give you worse reception or just none at all. Personally, I don't plan to convert as there is nothing worth watching on the TV anyway. I do netflix, get my news online, and can't stand the soap-operaish series on TV.

    1. Re:Convert Coupons = China Subsidy by evilviper · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Second, these mass-produced crappy converter boxes should not cost $40. They're all made in China and would normally retail for around $9 each.

      How could anybody in their right mind believe such patent nonsense?

      The digital converter boxes have to be low noise to tune and capture 6MHz of bandwidth, demodulate the 8VSB coding, perform lots of the error detection and correction, demux the channels and indvidual audio/video/text streams, then decode the 19Mbps (1920x1080@30i resolution) MPEG-2 video stream, downscale to 720x480, and output to Composite and RF outputs.

      It's absolutely amazing anyone has been able to make a device that could do so for $50. When is the last time you saw a DVD player for $9, let alone one that could effectively recieve a faint RF signal, and decode an extremely high bitrate, high definition video? It's an absolutely idiotic assertion.

      BTW, most folks don't realize those converter boxes are not going to give you any better quality or hi-def. In fact they're more likely to give you worse reception or just none at all.

      No. In absolutely every case I've seen, and the overwhelming majority of countless others I've heard of, you will get VASTLY better quality through a digital converter box than analog. I know in my area, the one unwatchably staticy analog station was replaced by a dozen crystal-clear digital stations, with just a few, quite minor drop-outs.

      As I've said before, the digital stations I DO receive happen to be all the ones that will be keeping their current transmitter and channel assignment, while all the ones I'm still unable to receive are the ones that will be switching to their original VHF-high transmitters. All this delaying of the switchover is pushing by my own reception of almost half of my local channels, and making it more likely that I will have to resort to buying a more expensive antenna rather than waiting.

      Personally, I don't plan to convert

      Yes, we all needed to know that. Because your personal entertainment preferences have a real impact on the rest of us...

      as there is nothing worth watching on the TV anyway. I do netflix, get my news online, and can't stand the soap-operaish series on TV.

      Exactly. NOVA, Frontline, American Experience, Secrets of the Dead, Nature, History Detectives, 60 Minutes, etc. These are all TERRIBLE shows, that you would best be completely unable to ever watch.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  17. Re:this isn't a good year for this by Overzeetop · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And why should I have had to change two of my outdoor light timer switches two years ago (at about $30 each) because some goofball in DC decided that moving DST by a month would be a cute prank?

    Did your neighbor sign up for the two free boxes via the coupon program? You, know, the one which has be advertised on TV for the last year? (For the record, I did, and didn't get them in the mail. They have since expired. FTC still won't re-issue them).

    No program is perfect - there are always fringe cases. Had your neighbor put a dime a day into a mason jar for his (or her) precious TV a year ago, there would have been enough to buy a converter today.

    Besides, he/she was born before TV; think of it as a return to his/her childhood.

    (sorry, I don't mean to be an ass, but $40 really is a small amount of money, even on a budget. If you don't have $40 worth of elasticity in your monthly budget, you're in far deeper trouble than not getting to watch The Price is Right. Now, if you want to argue the endless frustration a non-technically-savvy end user will have hooking up said converter - fire away. I'm all with you on how they fucked up the entire process by ignoring remodulation of HD signals over the venerable coaxial cable, and )

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?