Originally Posted By mawnck The Senate just unanimously passed a bill that would allow TV stations within 50 miles of the Mexican border to keep their analog transmitters on the air (within certain limitations) until 2013. <a href="http://www.senate.gov/~hutchison/pr080108b.html" target="_blank">http://www.senate.gov/~hutchis...08b.html</a> If the house signs off on this, this whole DTV thing is going to be an even bigger mess than anyone expected.
Originally Posted By mawnck Let the great wuss-out continue! That bill didn't pass (yet), but another one allowing some stations to stay on an extra month and run a sort of "we told you so" channel has passed, and arrangements are being made to implement it. But now, Congress is exceeding even my most cynical expectations with this one: <a href="http://www.broadcastingcable.com/CA6627445.html" target="_blank">http://www.broadcastingcable.c...445.html</a> >>Consumers Union has suggested a move (of the transition date) of four months or so, according to a CNBC interview with CU senior counsel Chris Murray, the other signature on the CU letter. Murray told CNBC that he thought there was a "reasonably good chance" that Congress would push the date back four months or so. "We're not ready to say there will be a delay yet," he said. "We believe that Congress should consider a delay [but] I don't think I can talk about this as something that is readily going to happen," he said. Perhaps, but the Washington lobbying community was buzzing Wednesday with talk that it was a real possibility. In an e-mail alert from communications law firm Wilkinson Barker Knauer obtained by B&C, the Murray CNBC intervew was cited prominently, with lawyers there saying they were hearing that "serious consideration" was being given to moving the date to June 1 (Memorial Day weekend) and suggesting more trial balloons would be floated in the coming days. According to the lobbyist, the new administration is not looking forward to inheriting a transition with major issues about viewers not receiving their subsidies in time. That would include target populations like senior citizens, minorities and the disabled. It would be tough to make the move at this late date. The broadcasting and cable industries and the government have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in cash and donated airtime on hammering home that Feb. 17 date, putting it on Web sites, billboards, and even a race car. Some broadcasters have already made the switch early (Wilmington, N.C.), or are about to (Hawaii on Jan. 15), and some of the spectrum has already been auctioned for advanced services.<< A few other points on this: (1) One of the chief reasons given for all this is that the government coupon program has spent all its allocated funds and is now putting applicants on a waiting list. The coupon program, from the beginning, was expected to run out of money. Around October, as a matter of fact. It lasted longer than expected. (2) The only people who haven't acted on this by now would have to either be terminal procrastinators who won't order the coupons three months from now either, or people who don't know about the transition and thus must not have TVs. (3) TV stations, who have blown preposterous quantities of commercial time on this transition, are not going to be happy about this at all. And imagine the "government who cried wolf" effect if the February 17th date they've been harping on for a year ends up not sticking. (4) TV IS NOT A RIGHT! Unbe-friggin-lievable.
Originally Posted By alexbook >>(2) The only people who haven't acted on this by now would have to either be terminal procrastinators who won't order the coupons three months from now either, or people who don't know about the transition and thus must not have TVs.<< ...or people who weren't able to get the coupons. The process has been a mess, and good luck trying to get someone on the phone. (I was waiting on the results of my second appeal of the rejection of my application for a coupon, all done by web and form e-mails, but then I got a digital converter as a Chanukah present, so I'm taken care of now.)
Originally Posted By DyGDisney Here's my question. In the commercial it says that "In fact, digital television is so much better that by law all TV must be digital by Feb. 17, 2009" or some such thing. When did we, as a country, start passing laws that because something was better we have to have it. Bananas are better than apples, so by law, everyone should eat bananas instead of apples.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< When did we, as a country, start passing laws that because something was better we have to have it. >>> That's not why it was passed. The real reasons are a) the gov't gets huge amounts of money to auction off the old spectrum, and b) large corporations think they can Increase Shareholder Value by using the newly-available spectrum to offer new services, such as fixed wireless Internet access to compete with cablemodems and DSL. But those reasons are kind of hard to condense into a short blurb.
Originally Posted By mele I've been waiting for almost a year to see how many people start complaining when the change happens. I'm so tired of seeing the alert on the morning news ticker.
Originally Posted By DAR I've been hooked up to non analog tv for years. So this will not be a problem for me. And once I get my HDTV I will never watch another LDTV(Low DefinitionTV). Nothing but glorious 1080p for DAR.
Originally Posted By mawnck >> The real reasons are a) the gov't gets huge amounts of money to auction off the old spectrum, and b) large corporations think they can Increase Shareholder Value by using the newly-available spectrum to offer new services, such as fixed wireless Internet access to compete with cablemodems and DSL. But those reasons are kind of hard to condense into a short blurb.<< It looks and sounds about a billion times better too, but I guess that doesn't count. I mean, it can't possibly be a win-win for everybody, can it? >>When did we, as a country, start passing laws that because something was better we have to have it.<< In this case, the same time they started regulating broadcasting in the first place. The analog color TV system has been essentially unchanged since 1953. It predates Elvis. It wastes obscene amounts of electricity, hogs spectrum space, and is laughably limited in the amount of information it can transmit. The frequencies being switched to other uses are at the top end of the UHF dial, where the power level required is the highest. 3 million watts, usually. Most stations at that end of the dial are money-losers solely because of their power bill. Believe me, they're relieved to be out of there. Any significant change in the TV broadcast system is going to cause a disruption, but it has to be done, or our grandkids are *still* going to be stuck with the 1953 technology. Get over it. (Yeah, I'm feisty today. Wanna make something of it?)
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Watching the 2 Pm KCAL News on TV, they stated that President-Elect Obama wants to delay the cutoff of all analog channels, since not everyone is ready.....
Originally Posted By mawnck Yep. Which is unfortunate. I don't know how he thinks we'll be readier in 4 months. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/08/AR2009010802586.html?hpid=topnews" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/...=topnews</a>
Originally Posted By DAR Since the government is in a generous mood lately, I say a voucher for a new HDTV worth up to $1500.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Since the government is in a generous mood lately, I say a voucher for a new HDTV worth up to $1500. << ... for every TV in the house, and a new rooftop antenna with installation, and a lifetime satellite subscription for those people in the middle of nowhere who are losing their barely-watchable analog signals, and new DVRs for everyone with a VCR or DVD recorder, and new TV licenses with transmitters and studios for people like me who don't like what's on. And a pony. I DESERVE A PONY!
Originally Posted By LadyKluck We are some of those folks out in the boonies that are actually getting worse reception with the digital signal then we do with analog. We have a converter box and rooftop antenna and still can get a better quality picture for CBS and ABC on analog. We also can't get satellite or a new TV for the simple fact we can't afford it. The one up side to the digital box is we now have 4 PBS stations instead of just 1 which I think is very cool.
Originally Posted By mawnck I'm not denying that there are some people out in the sticks that are losing out. The FCC is working with stations to set up a new digital translator network for situations like this. You wouldn't just happen to be in San Bernardino, would you, Lady Kluck? If so, it might be worth while to do a bit more research on antenna systems. Some residents of that area can't get LA *because* of a local PBS station (KVCR) overloading their tuners. If you stick a filter on your antenna line to cut their signal back a few notches, you might be able to scare up more reception on the other channels. It's iffy, though. Put your address in on www.tvfool.com and see what it says. Four LA stations - 7 9 11 and 13 - are moving their digital transmissions to their vacated analog VHF channels on transition day. Some boonie dwellers may have better luck pulling those in after the move.
Originally Posted By DyGDisney I'm bummed because I have basic cable and my two favorite stations are stations we are not supposed to receive with our very limited package. The cable guy said we are getting them through an analog signal. I refuse to upgrade to a more expensive cable with channels I don't want/need, so I guess I'll probably have to live without my two fave channels. Oh well, as long as I still get LOST!!
Originally Posted By mawnck Oh. Well, er, um, still good advice, says I. San Bernardino isn't the only place in that particular fix. But I don't think you'll be able to get any LA stations in February.
Originally Posted By DyGDisney Still, I was stating that the commercials say they are making it a law because it's better, which is a ridiculous reason. Now, if they said, "This is being made a law because it will save millions of watts of electricity per day which will reduce our dependence on foreign oil" that would send more of a message. But to simply say it's better??...... Chocolate is better than okra, so I'm passing a new law that we can only eat chocolate, not okra!!!
Originally Posted By mawnck >>I'm bummed because I have basic cable and my two favorite stations are stations we are not supposed to receive with our very limited package. The cable guy said we are getting them through an analog signal. << The digital transition has NOTHING to do with cable. A lot of cable companies are taking advantage of the confusion by moving channels to different tiers and jacking up the rates, but that's entirely up to them. They could continue sending you all your analog channels if they wanted to. If "Lost" is all you're interested in, then you might be a candidate for canceling cable completely and using an antenna (and converter box if you need one). The setup would pay for itself in short order, and over-the-air digital has better picture quality than cable.
