Conflict of Interest May Taint DTV Delay Proposal 339
Anonymous writes "Ars Technica has discovered that one of the Obama transition team members advising on the digital TV transition has a conflict of interest that would benefit WiMAX carrier Clearwire over Verizon. 'Barack Obama's call to delay the DTV transition would affect not only millions of analog TV viewers, but also powerful companies with a vested interest in the changeover date — including at least one with an executive on Obama's transition team.'"
Impressive... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Corruption scandal? Merely having a conflict of interests is not unethical.
Re:Impressive... (Score:5, Insightful)
At my work, I'm actually not allowed to have a vested interest in a competitor. But I guess government advisory boards can favor different companies if they want, based on vested interests of their advisory board members...
If so, that would be yet another reason governments tend to run worse than private enterprises. :)
Re:Impressive... (Score:5, Insightful)
If so, that would be yet another reason governments tend to run worse than private enterprises. :)
So we have one example of where private enterprise bans conflicting interests and one where government also bans conflicts of interest, but it sounds like that may have been compromised.
Not to say that government as good as private enterprise or better, but that's some shady logic you're using to for a general indictment of government.
Re:Impressive... (Score:4, Insightful)
P.S.
I should add that Obama's whole proposal of postponing the date is ridiculous, and deflates my confidence in his intelligence. I thought he had a high IQ, but now I'm not so sure. And even if Obama is unaware of the DTV transition issues, his advisers should be aware but they are giving him poor advice. There are several reasons not to delay:
- I already went-out and bought the boxes. I'm prepared and ready to switch to DTV, as are many many many other people.
- TV stations have already hired and scheduled:
--- technicians to arrive on February 17
--- new antennas to install on same date
--- advertising to tell consumers that February 17 is the deadline
- The transition has been in progress for ten years. (From 1999 to 2009.) It's already been postponed from December 31, 2006 to 2009. People have had plenty of time to prepare themselves with new DTV televisions and/or DTV boxes. We should no more postpone the date a 2nd time for these procrastinators than we postpone the April 15 date for tax payments. If people can't get off their overweight asses and get a box, then too bad for them. Again: They've had ten years.
Th only thing that should be done is approve more money for coupons, so they are available well into March and thereby assist people with the upgrade, but otherwise the 2/17 date should stand.
Re:Impressive... (Score:5, Interesting)
There are certain sectors where conflicts of interest are unavoidable. Financial Investing and Politics are two them. The general remedy in these situations is full disclosure rather than suffer a chain of recuses every time you try to get something done. With full disclosure, at least the opposition can frame your decisions properly and decide whether or not they are motivated by personal interest.
That's why Cheney received only a minimal amount of heat for his Haliburton connection. Everyone knew up front what his interests were and had ample opportunity to question his motives.
Re:Impressive... (Score:4, Informative)
And correct me if I am not mistaken. But he also gave up all personally benefiting assets in Haliburton.
The only assets that remained were in control of his charity foundation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That is my understanding, yes. Though that doesn't completely remove potential conflicts of interest. Trading political favors comes to mind as one way to work around a divestment of assets.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's why Cheney received only a minimal amount of heat for his Haliburton connection. Everyone knew up front what his interests were and had ample opportunity to question his motives.
I feel it's important to point out that Cheney was one of Bush's closest advisers and policy makers, not to mention second in line to the presidency. This guy Salemme on the other hand appears to be an unofficial part of the transition team, advising as an expert on this one matter. He's not mentioned on Obama's website as even being a member of the transition team, although it's clear he is, he appears to be meeting with congressmen. It's not like he's writing checks to his company or pulls Obama's stri
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't give obama's people a pass just because you're sympathetic to his politics.
The proper remedy here is not disclosure, it is recusing the person with the conflict of interest from participating in the decision.
Re:Impressive... (Score:5, Insightful)
As a rabid right-winger, who dislikes the issues Obama stands for, I have to disagree on the remedy. In my mind, it's both. Disclosure, but participation in the discussion. And no voting (actual say) on the decision. Allow the rest of the team (and citizens in general) to know his background, but recognise that though there may be a vested interest, he may actually be an expert in the field. Making such a decision without people who actually care (vested interest) and are technical experts in a field is pretty much about as stupid as making the same decision and letting the vested interest (especially an economic interest) run roughshod over the process.
By all means, bring in the experts. Just don't let the ones who will financially benefit actually vote on the outcome.
And I say this without regard to political party.
Re:Impressive... (Score:5, Insightful)
To be fair, there is a difference between a company and a government. A company inherently operates in a particular sector. They have a fairly well-defined scope so it's reasonably easy to pick out who their direct competitors are, who their partners are, and what companies they have no particular link to.
High-level government officials and teams, however, inherently have some level of influence over every imaginable sector/industry. Which means that the chance of a conflict-of-interest arising becomes much higher (if you pick a random economic sector, and you have a group of 10 people, there's a good chance that one of those people will gain or lose in some way depending on decisions made; whether it be because of owning stock, having a family member employed by that industry, etc.).
That having been said, government officials should absolutely be held to a very high standard on conflict-of-interest cases. The appropriate action here would be for that particular Obama team member to recuse himself from any decision-making related to that particular issue. He can remain active in other aspects of planning, but should absolutely not touch anything related to this conflict-of-interest (and the planning/execution should be done in a transparent way so that the public can be confident that he wasn't involved).
Re:Impressive... (Score:5, Insightful)
Merely having a conflict of interests is not unethical.
But when that conflict of interest results in government policy which favors those interests, at the expense of competitors, that's potentially unethical. Of such things, corruption scandals are made.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Impressive... (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny, I seem to remember the massive calls for Cheney's head because he was the CEO of Halliburton prior to being elected VP (of course, by that time he had stepped down and divested all shares of that company). All in the name of "conflict of interest"...
The rules work differently depending on which party's partisans happen to have the most mod points when such comments are made.......
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And thanks to his transparency he's shown throughout his Vice Presidency there have been zero questionable activities at all. Those secret energy meetings were kept from the public because they were too "technical" for us. And Halliburton/KBR really did earn all those no bid contracts in Iraq.
Re:Impressive... (Score:5, Informative)
The analogy between the situations is pretty weak.
1) Was Obama ever president of Clearwire? No. Some guy lobbying Obama (not even in his administration) is an executive v.p. of Clearwire.
2) Is the Obama administration going to give Clearwire billions of dollars? No. It's going to make a decision that arstechnica argues might help Clearwire by delaying a competitor.
3) Did Clearwire overcharge the government $1 Billion [bellaciao.org] in "the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of my professional career" according to a govt. contract officer with 20 years of experience? No. (It's not even possible, since Clearwire isn't getting a payoff from taxpayers).
So equating the two situations only shows that your judgement is clouded by partisanship.
Re: (Score:3)
So equating the two situations only shows that your judgement is clouded by partisanship.
No, I made an observation on the types of comments that we see around /. and the manner in which those comments were moderated. I haven't really taken a position either way on the Cheney issue, other than rolling my eyes at the fact that his name came up in a discussion about the new administration.
Calling me a partisan is pretty funny too because I've rarely agreed with the Bush administration on anything. In fact I was a partisan in the other direction right up until the time that Obama reversed himself
Re:Impressive... (Score:5, Insightful)
and had been found that his statements that he had removed financial ties to himself and Halliburton to be "steeped in loopholes and legalese and avoidance".
You were saying?
Re: (Score:2)
You were saying?
Regardless of what HE was saying, it still doesn't change the fact that this member of Obama's team is also still involved with a company that would be directly benefiting from this legislation. Unless your goal is merely to prove that Bush's cronies are just as bad as Obama's (which frankly isn't hard - not even the Republicans can stand Bush anymore), then you haven't accomplished much.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see... "advisor" or "staff" with a conflict of interest.
versus
vice-president with a conflict of interest
Yep... those two sure are the same thing.
Anyone with a clue is bound to have an stake somewhere.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't get a deferred salary in a blind trust. As you say, nice try with the talking points.
Let's say what you are saying is true (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope, Darth Vader came to the VP office to make money. Let me get the chronology correct here.
1) Leave incredibly profitable private sector job to Become VP, knowing there would be a 9/11 leading to the concern over WMD and that Saddam would not comply with UN resolutions or IAEA inspections, that we would thus invade Iraq, and that Haliburton would become the military's main civilian infrastructure contractor.
2) Invade Iraq
3) ????
4) Haliburton chosen as main contractor by US military
5) Profit.
In other words, even if you impugn the man's character and motives, you still have to give him the foresight to predict all of this, as well as some shred of evidence that he actually influenced the contract selection process of the US Military. To date, there is no evidence - and a mound of contrary evidence - that Cheney had influence over Haliburton being chosen.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
These things are rarely accidents.
A conflict of intrest is unethical. (Score:2)
On the other hand, it is pretty much impossible for a government official not to have a conflict of interest. Still, this is so blatant that it undermines the credibility of the administration.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Side note: Holy crap your post made me laugh
Welcome to Chicago Politics (Score:5, Funny)
The "C" in Chicago stands for "Corruption".
Welcome to Politics (Score:2)
The "C" in politics stands for "Corruption".
Fixed that for you
Re:Welcome to Politics (Score:5, Funny)
The "C" in politics stands for "Corruption".
Fixed that for you
But, in Chicago, its a capital "C".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"He pulls a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue! That's the Chicago way!"
Re:Impressive... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the record was when Rush Limbaugh christened the Obama recession [rushlimbaugh.com] two days after Obama was ELECTED.
Re:Impressive... (Score:4, Funny)
Rush Limaugh is a national hero. That man has balls, to say the truth when facts are utterly against him.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's chump change. The Dem's were sacrificing Bush (holy LOL!) for the collapse of the Tech Bubble and that started BEFORE Bush was elected!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It was doing that pretty much from September 1st onward.
No it wasn't. The market pretty much tanked from October 1st to the 10th (lost about 2000 points) before rebounding a little. I believe this was about the same time that Bush made the emergency request for $700 billion to "rescue" the banks.
However, the market was tumbling daily from 9625 points on November 4th, down to 7552 points on November 20th. I believe that's right around the time Obama finally spoke up about how he probably wouldn't be raising taxes. The market has closed well above that point e
Re:Impressive... (Score:4, Insightful)
When Barack Obama stocks his staff with industry insiders, it's corruption. When George W. Bush stocks his staff with industry insiders, it's just politics as usual.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
When George W. Bush stocks his staff with industry insiders, who make policy decisions that directly benefit their industry, it's corruption. When Barack Obama stocks his staff with industry insiders, who make policy decisions that directly benefit their industry, it's more of the same.
I saw the red flags when Google started to get more busine
This guy isn't even on staff... (Score:3, Insightful)
The guy in question has made some campaign contributions (apparently around $17,000).
He has an impressive history in the industry and as a lobbyist in DC. The guy has been around, knows his technical info, and knows who to talk to in DC.
But.... He is not on Obama's staff. It appears that he was invited to some of the campaign parties, and that he has (post election) been invited to one or more meetings as a consultant with the head of Obama's Science and Technology working group. A group headed by Tom Wheel
Re:Impressive... (Score:5, Insightful)
Does the name "Rupert Murdoch" ring a bell?
In 2003 he owned over 175 newspapers, and every single one of them were pushing pro-Iraq Invasion editorials.
The media is STILL pussy footing Bush. Just a few days ago he said that it was "unfortunate" that no WMDs were found in Iraq. Talk about the most self-centered and retarded things to say. We are extremely fortunate that there were no WMDs found. If they had been found that would mean that 1) There are/were people in Iraq with the knowledge to make them again, and 2) That there are likely more of them in different storage facilities or being off loaded on the black market.
To call it "unfortunate" that we destroyed a country and killed tens of thousands of people and displaced millions more, is a grievous understatement.
The only reason why it is "unfortunate" is because it will forever tarnish Bush's record in the history books.
Yet the media just sweeps away the statement. The guy makes a statement showing that his primary concern is his legacy, not the security of the country, nor the millions of people affected by the war.
Not that I'm a sunshine-daisy Obama optimist. He strikes me as more of a centrist republicrat than a lefty liberal. But taking over after Bush, he'll be hard pressed to do worse.
-Rick
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're going to be a partisan hack troller, you can at least try to get your simple, easy to check facts right.
Bush did not say that it was "unfortunate" -- that is entirely your word. You've built up and entire impassioned head of righteous steam over something you are either lying about, or never bothered to check (ironic after you chastised the media for alleged inaction). Look it up in the transcript if you don't believe me. Here, I'll even do it for you:
Q And I'm not trying to play "gotcha," but I wonder, when you look back over the long arc of your presidency, do you think, in retrospect, that you have made any mistakes? And if so, what is the single biggest mistake that you may have made?
Bush: ... ... snip ...
There have been disappointments. Abu Ghraib obviously was a huge disappointment during the presidency. Not having weapons of mass destruction was a significant disappointment. I don't know if you want to call those mistakes or not, but they were -- things didn't go according to plan, let's put it that way. ...
Re:Impressive... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I voted against Obama, because I think his political views are nonsense.
Many voted against Obama because many of his views generally are nonsense and just about every significant opinion held on current affairs have proved to be the wrong opinion to hold. Many voted against Obama because they believe in the US Constitution. Obama seemingly likes to pick and choose the parts he likes. He'd rather the 2nd amendment go away. Conversely, many voted for Obama because he wasn't Republican and is black.
Many voted
Same-ole, same-ole (Score:4, Insightful)
how many governments fall apart before starting? (Score:2, Interesting)
Even "Whitewater" Hillary starting to look good in comparison.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To be fair, Obama's campaign wasn't really centered around "I'm going to vet every single postion I fill much more rigorously than anyone ever has before." Not that discovering the present case would have been too dificult to discover, but it's a long shot from Obama saying "You know what? Let's hire someone with conflicting interest on something fairly minor. Make a little extra cash and potentially making things just a little more interesting before I even take office."
Calling it corruption is making a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm probably naive (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
No experience in the field only qualifies you to run the CIA.
Re:I'm probably naive (Score:4, Funny)
No experience in the field only qualifies you to run the CIA.
Naw, it'll get you a post [wikipedia.org] at FEMA too......
Missing the point (Score:4, Interesting)
According to TFA, Obama, who wants to delay the DTV switch, is doing so (at least in part) based on the input of someone who stands to directly profit from having the transition delayed.
Why: It would seem that this Salemme guy is a Clearwire executive. Verizon, in an attempt to compete with Clearwire, spent $9.4 billion to be allowed to use the spectrum that analog TV is currently on. Obama, on the advice of Salemme, wants to deny Verizon use of that chunk of spectrum, preventing them from competing effectively with Clearwire.
rofl (Score:2, Insightful)
an old adage (Score:5, Insightful)
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity. As complicated as politics are and as interconnected as this world is, there's bound to be things that are overlooked. Of course, if you or I were becoming president, we wouldn't make such mistakes, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.
That quote is designed to cover the ass of smart malicious people. It gets repeated by the malicious to excuse their behavior, and by the stupid to try and make them feel smart. That being said, there are many mistakes that don't require stupidity or malice. I don't know enough of the man, or his position to know if what category the situation falls into, or if it is even a problem at all.
Well... (Score:2)
This conflict is about TV and networking. The current conflict is about contractors who profit from war.
Both bad, one is worse.
Or is it that there are not yet enough.... (Score:4, Insightful)
.... viewers switched over to support the economy (re: advertisers)?
Re: (Score:2)
Conflict of Interest (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Conflict of Interest (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah. It's terrible when political officials in high positions make decisions that conflict with their real world corporate jobs. *coughcheneyhalliburtoncough*
What's the relevance of bringing up Cheney in this manner? Surely your argument isn't that the Bush Administration did it so now the Obama Administration should do it as well?
Re: (Score:2)
Misdiagnosing stupidity as malice (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm all for rooting out scandals and Truth, Justice, and The American Way, but when you run the government, you can either pick people who've done things, or who you really like. And people who have done things will have prior relationships with other people, organizations, and businesses.
Let's judge POTUS on what he does, not on what his contacts or their contacts might want.
Delaying the deadline is a dumb idea. We make deadlines so everybody can plan the switch. This transition has been planned for a long time. It's been heavily advertised. The switch will be painful for lots of poor folks who can't afford new equipment or who are bedridden and can't go shopping, but delaying the transition won't change that cold reality.
Keep the train on schedule, Obama.
Re: (Score:2)
What if they're oil contacts?
Re: (Score:2)
If they are oil contacts, and POTUS initiates a baseless war in an oil-rich country, and then grants no-bid contracts to those oil contacts, I'd say the no-bid contracts smell real corrupt. But the smell of thousands of corpses would bother me much, much more.
Hypothetically speaking.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm all for rooting out scandals and Truth, Justice, and The American Way
Well we've managed to root out 3 of the 4... ;)
At least it isn't Verizon (Score:2)
Re:At least it isn't Verizon (Score:4, Informative)
Verizon and AT&T are both conglomerations of baby bells. But they're not the same company.
Verizon formed from a merger of Bell Atlantic and GTE. Bell Atlantic earlier gobbled up NYNEX.
The "new" AT&T is SBC, renamed. SBC gobbled up Pacific Telesis and Ameritech, the old AT&T, and finally BellSouth.
So? (Score:4, Insightful)
That doesn't mean an issue does not exist. Just because some big company is going to benefit from a delay in DTV rollouts, does that mean we should cut off our nose to spite our face?
President Elect Obama has a reasonable argument that the market is not ready for DTV. I personally think that it will never be ready for the DTV changeover and that we'll need to do it the hard way anyway, but that's just my opinion. The government had a specific way they wanted this done. They have yet to achieve that goal.
Specifically, many consumers are still unaware of the changeover, or believe that they will need a new television or cable/satellite provider to continue receiving service.
Until the FCC gets much closer to achieving their goals for this changeover, Mr. Obama has a reasonable point.
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Specifically, many consumers are still unaware of the changeover, or believe that they will need a new television or cable/satellite provider to continue receiving service."
Are you kidding me? For the small percentage that don't have cable / satellite, how could you possibly miss the unending (and extremely irritating) ads on all the main broadcasting stations about the change, how to know if you'll need to get a converter box, where to get one, how to get a discount / free one, and where to find more information if you still have questions? Anyone who's still unaware or confused about things has something seriously wrong with them to have missed out on this for the last year or else never uses a TV and as such it doesn't affect them anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who the hell has TiVo, but not cable or satellite? What would you record?!
Besides, the "ads" he's talking about are the kind that scroll across the bottom of the screen like stock tickers or NWS storm warnings. They occur during the show, so you can't skip them with TiVo (unless you want to miss your show along with it).
Re: (Score:2)
Simple. It depends on your geographical location. The FCC focused on a few early-cutover areas to launch massive advertising campaigns. If you live in one of those areas, you've been annoyed to death over the changeover. If you happen to live in some other area (especially many of the rural areas the government is concerned about) you've probably seen a minimum of changeover commerc
Re: (Score:2)
If the government just makes the changeover, these folks will manage to find some smart young'un to help them get their TV working again.
My understanding is (correct me if I'm wrong) that the analog stations aren't going to go dark right away anyway. They'll have messages up explaining why they've stopped transmitting and providing information about the DTV transition.
Re: (Score:2)
So what if some people lose their TV program. If they're addicted to TV, logic would hold that they would have seen the DTV announcements plastered all over TV broadcasts (and even the TV's themselves). If not, well, maybe this will be a good splash of reality. A deadline is a deadline. This one was quite generous. I was almost ready to clap for government achieving something on schedule, and now Obama and you people show up. TV isn't like air or water. Nobody's going to keel over dead if they miss their so
Re: (Score:2)
President Elect Obama has a reasonable argument that the market is not ready for DTV. I personally think that it will never be ready for the DTV changeover and that we'll need to do it the hard way anyway, but that's just my opinion. The government had a specific way they wanted this done. They have yet to achieve that goal.
This is how I feel too. Yes we will have to do it the "hard way", by requiring a switchover. However that day does not have to be Feb 17th come hell or high water, a couple month delay
Re: (Score:2)
Funded from what? The government is out of money.
IMO (Score:2)
So... (Score:5, Interesting)
We've already ruled out the possibility that there _might_ just be a consumer-beneficial reason for pushing back the changeover date? I mean, because it's political, it _has_ to be so someone or some company can game the system and reap megabucks?
Not really a transisiton team member (Score:5, Informative)
Having RTFA...
Salemme is not actually an adviser to Obama. He met with Senator Rockefeller and Tom Wheeler (one of Obama's many advisers) last week. He also donated some money to the Obama campaign. That appears to be the sum total of his involvement. Not very compelling evidence that he is behind the policy, if you ask me.
The assertion that he is a transition team member appears to be outright false.
OT : Why cancel analog? (Score:4, Insightful)
Can anyone educate me on why a mandated cutting analog is a requirement of DTV?
Re:OT : Why cancel analog? (Score:5, Informative)
Can anyone educate me on why a mandated cutting analog is a requirement of DTV?
The spectrum that analog TV uses was sold off so that companies like Verizon could use it for a new wireless network service. Can't really do that while analog TV broadcasts are still using the spectrum.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's because the question makes no sense. Nobody said it was a requirement of DTV.
DTV is the replacement for analog, and once analog is gone, DTV is what will be in its place. It already exists now, but as an option. Cutting analog makes it the only 'option'.
To ask the question he asked means he's either amazingly stupid or a troll.
Why cancel analog? Money. (Score:4, Insightful)
The question makes perfect sense, as does the answer.
"Can anyone educate me on why a mandated cutting [of] analog [service] is a requirement of DTV?"
The transition to DTV frees up radio spectrum space currently used by analog. That space is very valuable, and has been sold/licensed for hundreds of billions of dollars. Those who will use the space have a pressing need to access that space ASAP - both to be able to use it at all, and to recoup their very large investment (every delayed day costs them millions in lost revenue).
Yes, technically, DTV can co-exist alongside analog TV. But as most broadcasters & viewers transition to DTV, maintaining that legacy service stalls other technical advancements (ex.: 4G) which would serve a whole lotta people for a whole lotta profit.
Translation: DTV requires cutting analog TV service because not doing so means you (and 50 million other people) don't get your 4G video cell phone just because Gramma wants to watch some podunk TV channel on her 1962-vintage television.
Re:OT : Why cancel analog? (Score:5, Informative)
I know that seems counterintuitive, but the answer is ultimately fairly simple if you look at the politics behind the DTV switch. A while back, the US government (Clinton Era) decided to sell off the public airwaves to various companies. Of course, in order for these companies to take control of these airwaves and use them for cellphones and what-have-you the analog signal had to be cleared from the airwaves.
The only reason the government was able to do this was with a partially funded mandate, which was to force all analog signal consumers and all analog signal broadcasters to switch to a digital signal. The reason why that would work because in theory you could compress the same number of broadcast stations into the smaller remaining bandwith, provided that they were digitally encoded signals that would be decoded by a digital reciever.
So, the answer to your question is this, this isn't about DTV. This is about a problem that the government created of having sold the analog spectrum that is currently being used for analog TV broadcasts to companies that want to use something else. The government believes that a DTV switchover is the solution to this problem, so they are trying to get the majority of consumers and broadcasters to switch to DTV as soon as possible. That's why they are giving away coupons from the Commerce Department, and running ADs that say "you must switch to DTV."
I also believe that a lot of retailers were hoping that the confusion created in non-technical users regarding DTV was going to drive HD-TV sales, but that's a totally seperate issue.
Of course, the economy doesn't look quite the same now as it did when this switchover was originally mandated for 2009, and that's probably the real reason why there is talk of delaying the changeover.
Keep people off the rooftops in Feb. (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if you do have a converter box, or and HDTV with an antenna, you still don't know what you will be able to receive until after the transition, because some stations will move their broadcast frequency. Also, once the analog broadcasts stop, you'll be able to receive some fringe signals that were overwhelmed by them.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't want people up on their rooftops in mid-February adjusting their antennas after the switchover.
And you really don't want to get the job of going up a mountain-top 500 foot tower during the winter to move/adjust a TV transmitter antenna/feedline!
While most stations have a DTV signal up, it is usually on a different antenna from the analog signal, and many stations are planning to remove their analog antenna and/or move their DTV antenna to a better position post-cut-off.
Not neccesarily a conflict (Score:3, Insightful)
This guy may have an interest in the outcome, but he and Obama have a point: the public isn't ready for the changeover, and won't be until those coupons are in their hands (and maybe not even then, but they'll have the coupon for the box and if they choose not to use it that's their problem). It sounds to me like delaying the changeover for a month or two to give time to fund the coupon program is in the public interest. It'll hurt some companies and benefit others, but it seems to me that the only problem would be if the government decided to not delay the change because of the effects on those companies if they did. Unless someone can come up with a good argument why having analog TV broadcasts go dark for apparently a significant fraction of viewers is in the public interest (I think you could make that argument, but it'd require things from the companies that they aren't currently doing).
Re:Not neccesarily a conflict (Score:4, Insightful)
This guy may have an interest in the outcome, but he and Obama have a point: the public isn't ready for the changeover, and won't be until those coupons are in their hands (and maybe not even then, but they'll have the coupon for the box and if they choose not to use it that's their problem).
That is, in reality, the actual problem.
Theoretical funding for the coupons has run out, but that's assuming all coupons are redeemed. There are quite literally hundreds of millions of dollars worth that have not been. Although it is extremely unlikely they will be, the goverment can't just issue more coupons without money behind them.
The correct solution is just to have Congress allow another $100M or so of coupons to be printed, with the caveat that all coupons (even those previously issued) must be redeemed by March 1, 2009 (or some other very near, hard cutoff date).
Also, I really hated the fact that anybody could ask for coupons. I know people who have already invested over $10K in HDTV equipment who asked for them. I don't know if they used them, but it seems silly to me that they would, since they can only be used to purchase basically inferior devices (limited to 480i output). But, those coupons count against the budget.
Re:Delays my ass (Score:5, Insightful)
People who haven't switched over yet probably won't ever do it, so just make the damn cut-over and wait for the inevitable news stories about people being left without TV. These stories are going to happen whether you make the switch now or 10 years from now, so just do it already.
The people that haven't done anything about this switch by now must never actually watch their TV, since we've been subjected to crawls about it for more than a year on every broadcast channel, so they won't care anyway. Either that or they've just been too lazy, in which case the only way they're going to actually get a converter is if they get kicked in the pants sufficiently hard by, let's say, having their TV stations go dark.
Just get this crap over and done with so we can move on already.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
My thoughts exactly. Short of mailing every household in the US a converter box, there is no way to avoid some people receiving a snowstorm.
Correction; even if they mailed every household in the US a converter, you will still receive complaints of people not being able to watch <insert-crappy-show-here>.
Re:Delays my ass (Score:5, Interesting)
the only way they're going to actually get a converter is if they get kicked in the pants sufficiently hard by, let's say, having their TV stations go dark.
Honest question here: is the plan actually to have the stations go completely dark at the switchover date?
Wouldn't it make more sense to have those channels broadcast a continuously looped message that explains in detail how to switch over to digital TV? The message could be maintained for a month, say, after which time the channels would truly go dark to free up the bandwidth. Otherwise people who were not paying much attention will just think their TV is broken.
Even better would be a multi-stage approach; starting with occasional advisory ads and text-overlays (which I guess they are doing now?), then have every commercial replaced with an advisory, then have a perpetual "this channel will stop functioning soon!" overlay on the channel, then a continually looped message explaining the switchover, and finally the channels go dark.
I know that they "shouldn't have to" beat people over the head with this information--but the fact is that many people are probably still not aware that the switchover is going to happen, and could probably use some more insistent messages.
Re:Who released the hounds (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod disclaimer - I don't support one more than the other. I think just about any politician that's done what it takes to get to the presidency is bound to be a shyster.
Re:Who released the hounds (Score:5, Interesting)
Odd how this is the sort of post that pops up when it's a problem with the budding Obama administration but not so much when it has anything to do with Bush...
Well I'm not going to defend the OP, since I am cynical and I see no reason to defend Obama from the completely true accusation that he is a politician. Nor am I going to defend a conflict of interest.
But the simple fact is that the scale we're talking about, Bush vs Obama, is ridiculously different. Some low level advisor might get a temporary benefit from a suggestion Obama made regarding delaying DTV switchover, a relatively minor issue. Bush's vice president's former company was handed multi-billion dollar no-bid contracts (where in most cases the claim that this was because only halliburton could do it were flat wrong), to the point of even outsourcing our military's kitchens to this company. That's a conflict of interest that concerns me. If this was Bush, then it'd be his FCC chairman or Secretary of Commerce that was a VP for Verizon, who'd have already been given an exclusive contract for government wifi.
Bush's administration had plenty of minor conflicts of interest of around this level that I really never gave a rats ass about. They suck, but they're largely unavoidable. The difference is basically how important and high up these conflicts go, and how blatantly and severely they direct policy. We'll see how things turn out with the new guy, but right now just looking at the Cabinet-level picks Obama is no Bush and saying that is not inherently 'bias'.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Who released the hounds (Score:5, Insightful)
Cynicism and complaint are the resorts of losers and followers.
Actually I'd make the argument that as Americans we are supposed to have a healthy amount of skepticism/cynicism towards our Government. As far as complaining goes, that was written into the 1st amendment ("petition the Government for a redress of grievances") as I recall.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah. The old "see if you an do better" argument. It doesn't really hold water. One needn't been capable of doing a better job than someone to criticize their performance. My guess is 95% of Slashdot readers couldn't hold a candle to Jack Thompson if they had to argue a case before a court. That doesn't change the fact that he's a terrible lawyer and everyone can recognize that.