Don't Delay the DTV Transition!

[bicker]

Some anti-transition advocates, including Rep. E. Markey (D-MA), Consumer Union and PBS, are pushing to delay the DTV transition, called for by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and scheduled for February 17, 2009, since October 2005. These advocates have tried to scuttle the DTV transition previously, using whatever rationale they could possible come up with. This time, they're harping about the coupon program, which has been running for many months, having now issued coupons for its entire budgeted allocation, and therefore new requests are being placed on a waiting list. They're not addressing the fact that citizens have had many months to secure coupons, while being inundated with public announcements about the DTV transition and the coupon program, and haven't availed themselves of the opportunity until now, very late in the program, and indeed, practically too late to actually expect to get the coupons in time to purchase the converter box before the transition actually takes place.

Many people and businesses have spent substantial amounts of money in anticipation of the DTV transition. Is it fair to tell them one day that they need to incur this cost, and then later, after they had done so, tell them that they didn't have to?

Many businesses and emergency services are waiting to take possession of the spectrum that the DTV transition will free-up. The businesses have paid for use of this spectrum and the emergency services are in need of the additional bandwidth. Is it right to tell them now, 40 days beforehand, that what they paid for/what they need will not be available when promised, even though the date has been set for four years?

The DTV transition should take place as provided for by law. Folks like Rep. Markey are doing their constituents a disservice by putting the lack of conscientious planning on the part some people over the responsible actions of the vast majority.

 

[lovetoscrap]

I don't get this whole thing. Can you explain to me-- at about 3rd grade level-- why this whole Digital switch is going on and why a drop dead date was set for it to happen? I assume the govt is involved somehow? Why is the govt involved in television upgrades??

 

[bicker]

Let's start with your last question, since it is critical:

Television is broadcast, over the air, using radio frequencies allocated to broadcasters by the government, by license. That's how the government gets involved.

The government set us on the path towards digital television in 1996, for several reasons. One of the things that the United States relies on for its economic vitality is fostering technological innovation and advancement. Also, digital television provides far superior audio and video quality, using significantly less of the available bandwidth. Also, there are other things our nation and its people could do with radio frequency bandwidth if we weren't using so much of it for television.

The digital transition will take a significant number of channels out of the realm of television (everything from channel 52 to 69) and make that available for new services and for use by emergency services. However, of course, in order for that to happen, whatever is on those channels now needs to be moved down below channel 52. That can only happen if some channels below channel 52 are cleared out. So analog channels below 52 will all be turned off, and all those channels then become available for use by the digital channels currently on channel 52 and above.

The country has been trying to get the digital transition rolling for many years now, but as with many things, people are going to wait until other people do things before they do it. As a result, it became a staring contest, with everyone waiting for someone else to make the first move. That is why setting a specific date for the DTV transition was necessary. That forced everyone to do something rather than everyone continuing to wait.

 

[xoprincessmomxo]

I don't know. I love my DTV signals that I get, but I do think that alot of the people that haven't gotten their converter boxes, have cable, or a new tv are the poorer elderly. My great aunt relies on her tv as pretty much her only form of social interaction. She can't leave the house by herself so she sits and watches her little 19 inch tv. No cable, just the basic 5. Luckily, she has family around that bought her a converter recently, and my dh went and set it up for her as noone had a clue how to do it. She is 96 years old, never married, no kids, and the majority of her family around here are her sisters who are also all in their 80's and 90's. She didn't have a coupon (although, she wouldn't have needed one, she's just elderly, not poor) nor would she have known how to get one. Most of the commercials give you website. At 96, she doesn't know what a website is. It might be a minority of people, but it's an important minority.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

I want them to do the transition, just because I'm so SICK of hearing about it!! And of course, on the day after the transition takes effect, the media will find some idiot that "didn't know anything about it" and now can't watch TV anymore.

 

[bicker]

I don't know. I love my DTV signals that I get, but I do think that alot of the people that haven't gotten their converter boxes, have cable, or a new tv are the poorer elderly.

The question is whether or not any amount of time would be enough to have everyone get what they need. People always wait to the last minute, and/or beyond, ignoring every opportunity made to help them get the information they need and help them do what it is they need to do.

The fact that we've gotten this close -- 40 days -- and only now people are raising concerns (that have not previously been discussed and the decision made to go ahead with the transition) shows that this is really an abuse of process. It seems some special interests are hell-bent on obstructing the transition, as much as they can, even though they are repeatedly overruled by duly appointed and elected officials making the decision in the best interest of the nation overall.

It might be a minority of people, but it's an important minority.

Absolutely there are folks who need to be accommodated, and that's why the coupon program was put in place to start with. The accommodation for that minority was vigorously debated and a system crafted to serve their needs. It included public announcements, telephone numbers and other ways of getting information, and availability of a discount on the converter box. Again, all this was vigorously debated and the operations of our legal system executed to arrive at what our society feels is appropriate accommodation. After all that, when can society be allowed to go forward without being sucker-tripped yet-again?

 

[mkingdomlvr]

The question is whether or not any amount of time would be enough to have everyone get what they need. The fact that we've gotten this close -- 40 days -- and only now people are raising concerns (that have not previously been discussed and the decision made to go ahead with the transition) shows that this is really an abuse of process. It seems some special interests are hell-bent on obstructing the transition, as much as they can, even though they are repeatedly overruled by duly appointed and elected officials making the decision in the best interest of the nation overall.

Absolutely there are folks who need to be accommodated, and that's why the coupon program was put in place to start with. The accommodation for that minority was vigorously debated and a system crafted to serve their needs. It included public announcements, telephone numbers and other ways of getting information, and availability of a discount on the converter box. Again, all this was vigorously debated and the operations of our legal system executed to arrive at what our society feels is appropriate accommodation. After all that, when can society be allowed to go forward without being sucker-tripped yet-again?

When did watching TV become a right that must be subsidized by taxpayers?

 

[KAMLEM]

I don't know ANYONE who does not have cable or satellite TV. Without cable, you don't get any reception in my area. I would like to know how many people this actually impacts. Anyone have any idea?

 

[bicker]

When did watching TV become a right that must be subsidized by taxpayers?

No tax revenues were used to fund the coupon program.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

No tax revenues were used to fund the coupon program.

It's a government program, is it not? Where are the $$ coming from?

 

[IWAS]

OK my thinking is that there are going to be a whole lot of people that will not be able to watch tv any more,

For instance people who live in the country, we have a hdtv and are able to recieve PBS in digital but all other local channels the signal is too weak, so during the recent test, PBS states our tv is ready, while ABC says our tv is not ready for digital,

not even sure a new antenna will help as the stations broadcast signal is only 35 miles,

but what about people who cant afford a new antenna? or can't afford a satelite, I mean there has to be people out there that won't be able to see the local channels anymore.

a converter box won't fix anything for people who cant even receive the digital signal. leading for the need to upgrade antenna, if possible or pay for satelite, there are people out there who can not do that.

 

[bicker]

I would like to know how many people this actually impacts. Anyone have any idea?

There are several reasons why you won't get a straight answer. First, you asked for "how many people this actually impacts" but one side of the argument is bolstered by counting "how many households..." and the other side is bolstered by counting "how many individual televisions..." There are disputes with regard to whether you should count people who would end up without any working televisions, versus counting people who would end up with as little as one little-used television without service. (Heck, I have an analog television stacked up in my basement, behind a whole bunch of other stuff I don't use... does that mean I get counted?)

Beyond that, the only relevant number for this specific complaint is the number of requests for coupons that were put on the waiting list, since that's the only thing that has changed. That number is pretty small, but changes daily, so one side will show the last number released (which was a few thousand, I think) while the other side will put forward an outrageously high estimate of how many actual applications there might be submitted between now and February 17, i.e., "millions".

 

[bicker]

It's a government program, is it not? Where are the $$ coming from?

The money came from the auction of spectrum I outlined earlier:

The digital transition will take a significant number of channels out of the realm of television (everything from channel 52 to 69) and make that available for new services and for use by emergency services.
​

So the transition made it possible to auction off over 100 MHz of bandwidth, for use after the transition takes place, and that money was used to fund the coupon program.

 

[bicker]

OK my thinking is that there are going to be a whole lot of people that will not be able to watch tv any more,

Well that's really the whole dispute, though: How many is "a whole lot"? Is there anything that would have significantly changed the fact that some people would not pay heed and therefore come up short? Should the entire country be held back because a small percentage of people didn't pay heed?

For instance people who live in the country, we have a hdtv and are able to recieve PBS in digital but all other local channels the signal is too weak

A good portion of that is because the transition hasn't happened yet. Figure it this way: Let's say your area has 7 television stations. They therefore used up 7 channels. The 7 channels were allocated and allowed to transmit with specific power output, so that they don't interfere with channels that serve other areas of the country. (That is very critical.) Now we have the DTV transition. Instead of 7 channels, now you have 14 channels -- the original 7 channels plus 7 channels on which those original 7 channels are now broadcasting a digital signal. Those additional 7 channels also had to be allocated and allowed to transmit with specific power output, so that they don't interfere with channels that serve other areas of the country. However, the original 7 channels got the best slots (i.e., those that could put out the most amount of power), of course, because they were there first. Once those original 7 channels are gone (since they're the analog channels, going away as part of the DTV transition), then the digital channels you're having problems with can either increase their current power (because they would no longer interfere with channels from neighboring cities, that were turned off as part of the DTV transition), or better yet, move to those best slots freed up!

so during the recent test, PBS states our tv is ready, while ABC says our tv is not ready for digital,

There will be some losses. The recent test shows that 89% of channels gain viewers from the DTV transition, while 11% of channels lose viewers. 89% gain versus 11% lose... that's pretty good numbers and although it may adversely affect some viewers it benefits many more, and in a society you have to draw the line somewhere. Otherwise, we might still be using telegraph instead of telephones to communicate.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

The money came from the auction of spectrum I outlined earlier:

The digital transition will take a significant number of channels out of the realm of television (everything from channel 52 to 69) and make that available for new services and for use by emergency services.
​

So the transition made it possible to auction off over 100 MHz of bandwidth, for use after the transition takes place, and that money was used to fund the coupon program.

Maybe it isn't federally funded, but the taxpayers are going to get hit for it somewhere. If my county purchased that bandwidth for emergency services, they will pass those costs on to me as a taxpayer.

My point is, watching TV is NOT a right. It is a privilege for those who can afford it. Last I checked, radio was still free, so the claim that these people will not have access to emergency messages, weather forecasts or the news is just bunk.

Next we'll be hearing that the converter boxes don't work well enough and we'll have to have some program to pay for cable/satellite TV for these people!

 

[JR6ooo4]

Didn't google say they could use some of the spectrum to provide wide area wifi and unbelievable speeds? No more hotspots, just turn your laptop on while in tthe car. as long as you are in an area that gets a tv signal. Which is about everywhere except some mountains and deserts.

Mikeeee

 

[legalsea]

Hmm. For Christmas my wife bought me an emergency TV/Radio device, with flashlight, horn, etc. Runs on batteries. In case of a power outage you may find out what is happening by listening to the radio or turning on the tv.

Soooo. I guess after February the TV portion of this emergency device will no longer work? Let us say a hurricane hits the gulf coast (could happen) and all power is lost. The TV part of my device would not be operative because it is not receiving a digital signal?

Seems strange to me.

 

[bicker]

It has been illegal to sell televisions in the United States without ATSC (digital) tuners, for quite some time.

 

[hoosll]

Here's a kicker - they have used up money for coupons EXCEPT if a coupon expired without being used ... there is no way to put that money back inro the program .... so how many coupons issued, how many used, how many expired?

 

[Duckfan-in-Chicago]

Don't have a horse in this race as all my TVs are covered, but in my experience as well as many others the coupon program was a joke. We signed up asap and were given dated cards yet no places in the area had any boxes.