Don't Delay the DTV Transition!

[bicker]

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 ....

.... until the coupon actually expires.

 

[bicker]

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.

I applied in September, got my cards in late October, had no problem finding eligible boxes in late December.

 

[cteddiesgirl]

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.

Actually, I don't think it's right for people to be forced by the government to pay for an additional piece of equipment per television to watch tv that has been free to watch for more than 50 years.

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.

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?

Oh. So you don't think Special Interest Groups have advocated for this change to happen? A lot of people will be making a lot of money off of this.
The television makers are making a killing off this. A lot of people with perfectly good tv's are literally throwing away those tv's and buying much more expensive digital tv's.
The makers of the converter boxes are making a lot off this too.
The government is also making a lot of money off of this because they are selling the airwaves to the highest bidders.

The cable and satellite companies have a reason to jack the prices even higher and make a killing with this.
We recently got digital cable because my dad bought 2 converter boxes (the limit on coupons per house). He hooked one up and didn't like what he saw. The channels were constantly going in and out, freezing up and/or showing only digital boxes. It was very difficult to watch anything. So now we have to pay $5 per month per tv to have cable to watch tv in our house on top of the actual cable bill. Oh. And those boxes are going up to $7 per month in the next month or so. That's 4 boxes and the main dvr in the living room.

This is in no way all about progress. It's mostly about some people getting even richer by making everyone else pay for it.

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?

You would actually be surprised.
Mostly people in or near cities. While those that live in smaller towns and in rural areas far fome cities tend to have use satellite or cable to get any tv, others don't. In fact, most of the local stations here have signals strong enough to reach the majority of the state. Those areas that are not reached by Indy stations have their own local network affiliations and are also close enough to Louisville, Cincinatti or Chicago.

So there are a lot of people in Indiana that have never even had cable or satellite. We certainly never did until just recently. I also know of several family members that don't have cable.

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.

Yep.
And even with the coupons, the converter boxes are not free. I think that the coupons will only pay up to $40 per box. They're at least $50 at Wal-Mart. And that's if you can actually get out to get to a store to buy the darn thing. Many elderly and handicapped cannot get out.

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.

Yep. We had to get those coupons early and no one had the boxes until almost after the coupons expired. We finally got to use our 2 about 1 week before they expired.

 

[bicker]

Actually, I don't think it's right for people to be forced by the government to pay for an additional piece of equipment per television to watch tv that has been free to watch for more than 50 years.

It's okay to feel that way, but that decision was already made, in the best interest of the country as a whole. Very few people feel that the nation should be beholden to support NTSC forever and ever and ever, so few people that their perspective on this economic issue did not prevail in the halls of government or justice.

Oh. So you don't think Special Interest Groups have advocated for this change to happen? A lot of people will be making a lot of money off of this.

Absolutely, but the question is whether any special interest should be able to hold back the entire country, when the vast majority of the country has already said to go ahead with it? The whole idea of government of the republic falls apart when the elected representatives aren't granted the respect incumbent in accepting that they represent the views of enough of their constituents to constitute the effective will of the people, on economic issues. Remember, this is not a matter of personal freedom. This is a matter of allocation of government resources and of economics. There aren't religious beliefs involved here; no religion worships NTSC. This is no different from the country imposing income tax.

The government is also making a lot of money off of this because they are selling the airwaves to the highest bidders.

That's money we don't have to pay in taxes. Two thumbs up there...

This is in no way all about progress.

However it is about progress.

You would actually be surprised.

No, we wouldn't because a test was done. I posted the results above. 89% of channels gain viewers. Only 11% of channels lose viewers.

 

[TLHB70]

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

Bicker,
Do you know how far back "quite some time" goes?
I am just curious because I have one TV that I don't think will qualify. All of our TVs in our home are fine, HD TVs, connected to cable, etc. However, we have a small TV that we bought in 2003 that I am wondering about. We bought it to plug into a power source in our car for our DDs to watch on long trips. (It has a VCR for their videos.) Now we have a new vehicle with a DVD player in it so the TV is no longer in our vehicle. I brought it onto our patio so that I can watch the news each morning while I exercise. We do have an electric antenna attached to it so I just assume it will not work after the switch date. We didn't bother about buying a converter box since it is an outside TV, not our main family TV. When I read your above quote, I was just curious how far back it became illegal.

 

[legalsea]

Here is a website that had the following information:

http://www.dtvanswers.com/dtv_faqs.html

Some of the questions and answers:

Because my area is prone to frequent power outages due to hurricanes and bad weather, I have a portable, battery-operated TV set to watch the local news for information about evacuations and shelters. Can I still use my portable set after the transition?

If your portable analog TV set has an available RF or Line input jack, it can be connected to a DTV converter box to continue receiving television signals after the transition. Currently, there is at least one battery-powered converter box available now. The manufacturer, Winegard, offers a battery pack for use with its converter box model.

If your portable, battery-powered TV set is a new model with a built-in digital tuner, it will be able to pick up television signals after the transition without a converter box. There are at least two portable digital TV sets selling in stores now, and more are expected to enter the marketplace in the near future.

I am a cable or satellite subscriber and have been told I don't need to do anything to prepare for the transition. But what should I do if my cable goes out in an emergency, such as a blizzard or hurricane?

If your cable or satellite goes out in an emergency situation, but you still have power for your television, it is important to note that you will not be able to receive any television broadcasts. In that case, you may want to consider purchasing a DTV converter box (and a suitable antenna, if you don't already have one), so you can receive free over-the-air television programming until your pay TV service is restored. Another advantage to using a converter box is that you may be able to receive some over-the-air local digital channels not carried on cable or satellite.

When there is a power outage, I listen to television broadcasts on my portable radio. Will the DTV transition affect television signals received on my portable radio?

Once full-power TV stations stop transmitting analog signals after February 17, 2009, your portable FM radio will no longer be able to receive audio from these TV stations. However, low-power and translator stations are not required to go digital by February 2009, so you may be able to continue receiving analog audio programming from those types of stations if there are any in your area.

 

[bicker]

Any large TV (36"+) bought since July 2005, medium-sized TV (25-36") bought since March 2006, and smallscreen TVs (13+) as well as VCRs bought after March 2007 were required by the FCC to be digital-ready. Before that, there were mandated warnings that retailers had to post regarding the impending transition to digital and therefore limited life of the set.

 

[bicker]

Useful insights:

The midnight February 17, 2009 shutdown date is set by an act of Congress. It will take Congress to pass a new bill and the President to sign it for the date to be moved. There might be some wiggle room if the FCC and/or the President declares an emergency, but that is a stretch. ...

According to Falcon_77 (http://www.rabbitears.info/ss/), 134 stations have already turned off analog as of January 5; 257 in total are scheduled to shut down analog prior to February 17. There are stations now operating at reduced analog power to modify transmitter hardware for digital operation, stations with tower crews lined up to replace antennas & equipment in the weeks after February 17, stations stuck at low digital power or no digital broadcast at all until an other analog station shut downs. If Congress forces a last minute delay in the transition, it will be a messy case of coitus interruptus.

 

[TLHB70]

I didn't think my little TV would make it. Oh well, it is not a necessary one. I just like having news going while I work out. After the switch date, I will just stick with my IPod.

 

[Missy1961]

I didn't think my little TV would make it. Oh well, it is not a necessary one. I just like having news going while I work out. After the switch date, I will just stick with my IPod.

I have a similar situation. The 2 TVs downstairs are connected to cable, so they are fine. but in my room upstairs I have a TV/DVD combo that I watch before I go to bed. I was thinking of buying the converter box but I was reading online about people having problems connecting smaller TVs. Plus our local Walmart doesn't have any in stock, Circuit City closed the local store so I don't even know if I can get one. I'm hoping that it is a digital TV--I don't think it's very old, so it's possible. Otherwise, I guess I can use it to watch DVDs.

 

[legalsea]

Our 'main' televisions all have Direct TV. We do have a couple of tvs in 'guest rooms' that are antennae types, as well as the 'emergency' tv mentioned in my post.

I do not have a converter box nor a coupon. I guess I shall wait a few months and get a used box off ebay. As time goes by and people start switching over to digital television sets I figure converter boxes will become cheap and plentiful.

 

[bicker]

It's okay to feel that way, but that decision was already made, in the best interest of the country as a whole. Very few people feel that the nation should be beholden to support NTSC forever and ever and ever, so few people that their perspective on this economic issue did not prevail in the halls of government or justice.

Just a bit more on this: The time to object to the DTV transition, itself, was earlier, and it is not only a matter of having to have made that point earlier, but also to have prevailed with regard to that assertion. There is an awful lot of folks out there who think that even though they lost a political battle that they still have a right to assert that their way is the way things shall be done anyway. That explicitly denies the principle of a nation of laws. Trying to prevent implementation of a law, 40 days before the law goes into effect, when four years have passed since the law was adopted, is an inappropriate abuse of process. The right way to address this was to try to get the law reversed over the last four years, not wait until the end and then create a panic for the purpose of exploiting the panic to trump the law.

 

[cteddiesgirl]

No, we wouldn't because a test was done. I posted the results above. 89% of channels gain viewers. Only 11% of channels lose viewers.

And how was that conclusion made?
I wasn't consulted on that test.

As for better picture, sound, etc. With the addition of digital cable, I see no real difference in my tv other than there's usually constant reception. Which would have happened with cable anyway. The picture is in no way clearer. Neither is the sound quality. In fact, on the ABC channel, anytime a network show comes on, the sound actually gets worse.

I don't see the big deal. I saw and heard the difference between dvd and vhs. I'm not getting the big deal and how this change over is supposed to benefit me and my family other than to take even more money out of our pockets.

Just a bit more on this: The time to object to the DTV transition, itself, was earlier, and it is not only a matter of having to have made that point earlier, but also to have prevailed with regard to that assertion. There is an awful lot of folks out there who think that even though they lost a political battle that they still have a right to assert that their way is the way things shall be done anyway. That explicitly denies the principle of a nation of laws. Trying to prevent implementation of a law, 40 days before the law goes into effect, when four years have passed since the law was adopted, is an inappropriate abuse of process. The right way to address this was to try to get the law reversed over the last four years, not wait until the end and then create a panic for the purpose of exploiting the panic to trump the law.

I wasn't consulted on this 4 years ago. Neither was anyone else I know. How was the information released? On every single tv channel? On ever single radio station? In every single newspaper and magazine? Not that I can recall.
Were people made aware then that everyone would have to shell out a lot of money so they could continue to see tv? I seriously doubt it.
Some lobbyist with interests in how much money they would end up making on this put money into the pockets of politicians to get it done as quickly and quietly as possible.

 

[daisax]

I remember as a Senior in high school (1981!) my social studies teacher expressing dismay that Ed Markey, one of her former students, had a successful career in politics, as he was easily one of the biggest idiots she had ever taught in her LIFE.

My point is, watching TV is NOT a right. It is a privilege for those who can afford it.

Historically speaking, that "privilege" has come along with purchase of a television set -- once you did, you could pick up the airwaves which were yours by right. Millions of people did, expecting to be able to use those sets until the sets themselves conked out.

I'm sick of the whole issue myself. I have digital cable on the tv I use most often, so it has not been a concern of mine. I do have a bedroom tv that I haven't bothered to figure out if it will work after the drop dead date or not. I figured if it didn't, I'd get a coupon and get a box and deal with it then. I was under the impression that the coupons would be available -- not that they would suddenly announce a month ahead of time that they were limited and there was a six month waiting period already. Seems like they dropped the ball big time on that.

I'll be fine either way, but I do think there are many people, especially elderly and rural people, who get a handful of channels and have been assuming that since the big event hadn't happened yet, they weren't shut out.

 

[edwardsfire]

There are some CHEAP folks out there that just need to man up and buy a new freakin TV.
This whole issue affects such a small amount of folks that its silly.
My dad (is kinda old fashoined) even he though, has had the proper TV for like 10 years now!
And to those who dont get cable...Thats what direct TV is for.
Open your wallet and stop complaining.
IMHO, if you aint ready for the switch over...the heck with ya.

 

[bicker]

And how was that conclusion made?
I wasn't consulted on that test.

It was a test, not a vote.

As for better picture, sound, etc. With the addition of digital cable, I see no real difference in my tv other than there's usually constant reception. Which would have happened with cable anyway. The picture is in no way clearer. Neither is the sound quality. In fact, on the ABC channel, anytime a network show comes on, the sound actually gets worse.

Then you, personally, are not taking advantage of the superior picture and sound that digital television offers.

I wasn't consulted on this 4 years ago.

Your elected representatives were. Those folks voted on your behalf. Your expectation to have say in everything the government decides is unreasonable. Regardless, your beef is with your elected representatives and their inclusion of your concerns in their service to you.

Were people made aware then that everyone would have to shell out a lot of money so they could continue to see tv? I seriously doubt it.

You'd seriously be wrong. There were public hearings in Congressional sub-committees. All of these issues were brought up and addressed back then.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

There are some CHEAP folks out there that just need to man up and buy a new freakin TV.
This whole issue affects such a small amount of folks that its silly.
My dad (is kinda old fashoined) even he though, has had the proper TV for like 10 years now!
And to those who dont get cable...Thats what direct TV is for.
Open your wallet and stop complaining.
IMHO, if you aint ready for the switch over...the heck with ya.

Exactly! I swear, the next thing you know-we'll all be paying for everyone's cable/satellite bills AND buying them new TV's!!

 

[Free4Life11]

As for better picture, sound, etc. With the addition of digital cable, I see no real difference in my tv other than there's usually constant reception. Which would have happened with cable anyway. The picture is in no way clearer. Neither is the sound quality. In fact, on the ABC channel, anytime a network show comes on, the sound actually gets worse.

If you can afford digital cable, then stop whining about the $10 or $20 bucks the converter box cost (after using the coupon). Anyway this transition has nothing to do with cable, it deals with over-the-air broadcasts people can watch without paying a monthly service fee.

I don't see the big deal. I saw and heard the difference between dvd and vhs. I'm not getting the big deal and how this change over is supposed to benefit me and my family other than to take even more money out of our pockets.

Oh get over it! This isn't just about YOU and your family. It's about improving the quality of TV signals for the MAJORITY of Americans. You are obviously upset about the DTV so of course I don't expect you to have noticed a difference. Could it be that you live next to a broadcasting tower and have always gotten good reception? If so consider yourself lucky!

Let me tell you, there is a VERY visible difference in the broadcast quality.

Did you watch the presidential debates? They were broadcast in HD and the picture was so amazing! You might not see it, but I've seen the difference and it's remarkable.

Were people made aware then that everyone would have to shell out a lot of money so they could continue to see tv?

Nobody is or was required to shell out a lot of money! We are talking $15 MAYBE $20 TOPS after the coupon. The whole reason they did the damn coupons was so the poor wouldn't ***** about it! If you are "poor" enough to afford a TV and the electricity to power it, then you are "poor" enough to have called for a coupon and spent $10 - $20 on a converter box!

Some lobbyist with interests in how much money they would end up making on this put money into the pockets of politicians to get it done as quickly and quietly as possible.

Actually, it's the government who made money off this. I believe they made almost $20 billion in the auction.

As far as this being done quickly and quietly...total baloney. This has been in the news for YEARS, especially this past year. If you haven't heard about it, you must be living under a rock. They have been running infomercials for months, banners scrolls daily, doing tests during the nightly news. This whole "I'm not ready" is nuts!

And money money money....no maybe things are about PROGRESS and BETTER TECHNOLOGY. I'm amazed at how people do not want technology in this country to move forward...we are always light years behind the Asians in terms of internet access speeds.

 

[bicker]

Unfortunately, Obama has now gotten involved ... even talking about changing the date almost surely going to cause more confusion than just letting it happen when it is supposed to.

 

[Free4Life11]

Unfortunately, Obama has now gotten involved ... even talking about changing the date almost surely going to cause more confusion than just letting it happen when it is supposed to.

Totally. They finally set a date and stuck to it this time, unlike their previous "deadlines." Why change it? They can push the date back for years...there will ALWAYS be someone who is not prepared. Tough ****! There have been announcements on nearly all braodcast stations DAILY for months. How are people not prepared!

ETA -- apparently some people are mad they don't have their coupon. Well too bad! They had at least 25 million coupons to distribute, don't wait until the last minute to request a coupon!