Obama Recommends Delay In Digital TV Switch 589
gregg writes "Six weeks before the nation's television stations are scheduled to convert to digital transmission, the Obama administration is asking Congress to consider a delay. In the most significant sign to date of concern about the impending digital TV transition, the Obama transition team co-chair John Podesta said the government funds to support the change are 'woefully inadequate' and said that the digital switch date, Feb. 17, should be 'reconsidered and extended.'"
In Other Words... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In Other Words... (Score:5, Funny)
Converter coupons are already sold-out (Score:3)
Fact is a lot of people aren't affected by the switch (me included) but I think it's only fair for those who can't get the help transitioning, to be able to have extra time to switch over.
Re:Converter coupons are already sold-out (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to me that anyone that hasn't received a coupon by now is just going to wait until the next deadline. Wasn't analog supposed to go off the air in 2006? Enough delays already, time to just rip the bandaid off.
They've had years (Score:5, Insightful)
The switch was already supposed to happen years ago, but they delayed things back then for the same reason. Should we delay forever and waste a huge amount of spectrum on an ancient broadcasting mechanism?
I think the program is out of money because a lot of people who don't even need coupons are getting them - my guess is that probably half of the people at least do not understand that if they have cable they don't need a different box.
There's still more than a month til the switch, time enough to sort out who really needs help and help them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The switch was already supposed to happen years ago, but they delayed things back then for the same reason. Should we delay forever and waste a huge amount of spectrum on an ancient broadcasting mechanism?
And to what great use are Verizon and AT&T putting this spectrum? Assuming I'm not a customer of either, how is this better for me? Especially if I don't have cable or a coupon...
I think the program is out of money because a lot of people who don't even need coupons are getting them - my guess is tha
Re:They've had years (Score:5, Insightful)
Correction: What you really meant was "what the broadcasters wanted in the first place: Nothing.
Because I can damn well tell you that I've wanted them to go digital since the change was first suggested the first time around and contrary to your assumption, I and many others like me are viewers.
What you may have tried to mean was "what the broadcasters and the select group of people who still use VCR's, 8-Tracks, and still haven't bothered to get a converter box wanted". Which would also be true. And fuck them too.
The spectrum is a public good. It should be used in the most effective way possible. Squatting on it with your 1940's analog technology because you don't want to spend the money on upgrading your equipment is ridiculous.
The fact that the switch to digital is going to be able to smoosh ALL of the current broadcasters into a smaller spectrum, and they'll still be able to provide more channels at better resolution and quality should be telling you something.
What are AT&T and Verizon going to do with their blocks? I don't care. Not because it's not important, but because it's not relevant to this discussion. They aren't the ones who are impeding the switch. They aren't the ones who drug their feet at every step in this conversion and who are now doing their best to whip up a grass roots scare campaign in a last minute effort to kill the project off. That's the broadcasters.
And "responsibility that it goes smoothly"? What sort of kool-aid are you drinking over there? There hasn't be one change of this nature at this scale that has ever gone 'smoothly'. What the government has a responsibility to do is make sure the public resources we've entrusted them with the stewardship over are being used responsibly and effectively. Not hand hold a bunch of people who aren't going to give a shit ever, until the day everything actually stops working.
Re:They've had years (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't have it both ways. You can't say that no one could get a converter box because they were always sold out. Either a good number of people got a box, thus causing them to be sold out. Or no one got boxes.
There were people who weren't ABLE to get a box in the 90-day period of time that their coupon was good for, there were people who GOT a box, and there were people who didn't TRY to get a box.
Of the three, only the first have ANY claim of injury here. And of those people, ONLY the ones who can legitimately say "I can't afford a $40 box" have my sympathy.
I don't see that as an overwhelming majority. Nor, given that the local churches and other charity organizations are running drives to get boxes into those homes too, do I really see THAT as an issue.
It's two fucking DVD's man. TWO. Four if the only ones you buy are those crappy $9.99 ones they toss in the bargain bin because no one really wants to see Mike Myers dressed up as a furry and slaughtering childhood memories. Unless you are on charity, Social Security, or a pension, you can afford it. And if you are, then I guarantee you there is someone out there who would love to put one in your hands.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it's only fair for those who can't get the help transitioning, to be able to have extra time to switch over.
What about all the companies who bought licenses for those frequencies and would now have to wait until it becomes politically acceptable? I don't think they would approve the government changing their contracts.
Hey, just doing you a favor... (Score:4, Insightful)
Given the state of broadcast television, I can't say blacking some people out wouldn't do them a favor. Okay, you need to get a convertor box and you may have to wait to get one, but if we encourage people in the meantime to read a book, go to the library, use the computer there and read the news and so on, that's bad? Really?
I mean, I'm scared that people think that TV is that much of a requirement. Local news is nice and all, sure, but you can make do.
Re:Hey, just doing you a favor... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hey, just doing you a favor... (Score:5, Insightful)
Change! (Score:2, Funny)
Too late!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
What about all the people that have already bought equipment and are waiting for the stations to go full power with DV? What about all of the stations who have spent tons of money and time gearing up for the switch? In my city (Denver) we have a large new tower built for broadcasting HD, and part of the promise to the residents of the area was that after the switch happened the old towers (and associated problems with them broadcasting) would go away. If you let this linger another year or two they are kind of screwed.
It's going to have to happen sometime, it might as well be now. Yes it sucks that the coupon program is underfunded (the web site you use to get coupons says they are out of money, so no more coupons are to be had), so make it a priority to get coupons out to those in rural areas much less likely to have cable or satellite already.
You just can't decide at the last moment to pull the rug out from under what is a useful technical move forward. There has to be some continuity between what government says will happen and what actually happens, or all dissolves to chaos as government promises are further devalued.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the local tv stations is going to make the switch one week early, so no matter what the govt says at this point is probably irrelevant anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What about all of the stations who have spent tons of money and time gearing up for the switch? In my city (Denver) we have a large new tower built for broadcasting HD, and part of the promise to the residents of the area was that after the switch happened the old towers (and associated problems with them broadcasting) would go away. If you let this linger another year or two they are kind of screwed.
Well it's not like they aren't allowed to broadcast digitally (many already are), or turn off their analog b
Riot (Score:4, Insightful)
There will be riots on street, if millions of low income homes are out of TV.
No, seriously.
Re:Riot (Score:4, Funny)
So people need to just remember to loot a new TV or converter box. Problem solved!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
People that are too lazy to go get a converter box are suddenly going to take to the streets with torches and pitchforks? I find that highly unlikely.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
People don't lack converter boxes because they're lazy, they lack them because a) they can't afford them and b) the government ran out of coupons.
Nobody uses OTA... (Score:5, Interesting)
From my POV here in Rhode Island, it looks like most 'poor' people have satellite, the middle class have cable and fios. I attribute this to the sat. companies not doing a credit check, which the cable companies seem to do.
The upper-middle class are the only folks I see with 'regular' TVs anymore. They listen to NPR and tune in to PBS or watch the news, but that's pretty much it.
And the rich folks... I wouldn't know. They never invite me over. :-) I would assume they keep high-end HDTV setups, but rarely watch.
I do think that there is an inversely proportional relationship to how much TV you watch and how much money you make though. I don't really ever spot my well-to-do friends watching TV. I haven't figured out if it's because
more disposable income -> better things to do than TV
or
educated and motivated -> more disposable income
The funny thing was, I went over to my parents a few days ago, and they think they're all set because they have cable, which is true in the TV room; but then they flipped on their little black-and-white 4" TV in the kitchen for the news. I pointed out that they'll have to drop about two hundred bucks to replace -that-, to which my dad replied, "Screw it, I'll throw it away."
Come to think of it, I haven't seen -one- actual, installed DTV converter, and I was in a -lot- of houses in the last month. I also don't know anyone who consumes OTA digital TV.
I'll bet there are a -ton- of elderly folks in those huge apartment towers I see all over town that have bunny ears though... They're going to be pissed, and they vote.
Re:Riot (Score:4, Funny)
And that is one revolution that will not be televised.
Lets keep us needlessly behind the time. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is the government pushing digital. It is not for the clearer image. It is because it takes less airspace, and you can free and resell a lot of the airspace.
However that said. Delaying this isn't really going to help anything. Most Americans either don't watch TV (perhaps playing movies) or have cable or satellite hooked up. The largest group effected is the Sr. Citizens. Who are not much effected by the economy (minus the ones with good 401k) but for the most part the pain going digital will be the same today as it will be next year.
Besides there is no important information that you can get on TV that you cant get via the Radio. You may actually get it faster via the radio.
Nooooo (Score:2)
Noooooo. Let's let things actually finish. We're SO CLOSE.
Fun the coupon program better with an executive order. Let analog stay on at night for a while in "nightlight mode" as has been discussed (just shows a "you need a converter box" screen).
But please, we're so close. The trial in November went very well, and the nightlight thing was shown to be very helpful.
But please don't delay things. "Enough people" will never be ready. This needs to happen, it's not like it's news. We've known about this for 2+
Re:Nooooo (Score:5, Funny)
I know its hard to grasp after the last 8 years, but Constitutionally the US is not an executive dictatorship where the President can just allocate funds to any purpose he chooses on a whim.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, congress did both.
What about the people who paid for the spectrum? (Score:4, Insightful)
After all, the spectrum that TV uses have already being partly sold. Wouldn't Verizon, et. al. be rather annoyed about this development?
Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
Beh
What happened to Homer Simpson, with no TV? (Score:2)
I seem to remember that it was a parody of "The Shining".
The US has enough problems right now. They don't need a bunch of TV-starved psychos running around, killing their families, as well.
Some areas are already done (Score:2)
All stations should be broadcasting in digital already. Most Utah stations have been broadcasting in digital for a while. They turned on the digital broadcast tower in 1999 (see here [wikipedia.org]) for which most local stations use. The only reason for the delay would be to give the co
So Much for Change (Score:2, Offtopic)
He also supports keeping the space shuttle on life support (@ $3B/yr).
Get On With It! (Score:2)
Radios to receive digital TV sound? (Score:4, Interesting)
I hope there will be cheap radios that can pickup digital TV sound like there is now for analog.
During the recent long power outage in New Hampshire, we found it very useful to have a little radio that picked up TV sound. The coverage of the emergency seemed to be better on TV than radio.
Radios like that will soon be less useful.
Already Happening in Boston. (Score:3)
TV in Los Angeles (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't speak for everywhere obviously, but here in Los Angeles pulling the plug on the analog transmissions is a big big deal. Not just because of Southern California's population but because of it's LATINO population.
I work in this industry for a Low Power Analog TV station (one that broadcasts on 4 different stations locally and a bunch more across the country). And the transition represents about 80% of my workload lately (I do broadcast engineering and IT).
But back on point, a LOT and I mean like hundreds of thousands of Latino families in the area rely on OTA transmissions. When you pull their plug, you might say "great, now they can go outside, read a book, etc" but in reality they're not tuned in. So that means advertising revenue dries up for the station (as it has for ours and almost every other that caters to the Latino community as well as mainstream tv programming). That means more layoffs and so on down the line.
Speaking for my company and other smaller players this delay is a good thing. Eventually the analog stations will go away and that's fine and eventually the low power guys like myself will have a concrete deadline too, and that's fine as well. Just remember though, millions have cable, direcTV, Dish, etc but there are still MORE than a few out there that really rely on plain vanilla over the air TV broadcast.
If you delay now what happens the next time? (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a lot of warning for the upcoming switch. It's not like OTA is being pulled, it's being shifted.
If you let people slide another few years, people will simply not be ready the NEXT time the switch comes along. People will never be ready, so you have to actually be ready to make the switch against some resistance and then people will be motivated to actually switch.
People are highly motivated to get TV, and so I don't think the switch will have as much power over even the poor as you think it will.
Re:TV in Los Angeles (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't speak for everyone, but --. I've been working on some facet of DTV for the better part of 10 years. My most recent project has been for a large cable/satellite TV provider to ensure they are transition ready. I can assure you, although there will likely be minor glitches in the 24-48 hours after the switch, I expect nearly everything to be operating normally on satellite and cable. (Even in cases where the broadcaster has changed channels, gone from UHF to VHF, or even changed transmitter locations.)
Over the Air: We're already on our second postponement. The spectrum has already been sold off, we are on borrowed time. Analog TV transmitters are on their last legs, they need to go away. I remember my first OTA 8-VSB receiver, was a DirecTV receiver, it was $700+ and worked poorly. Today, I am the proud owner of an Insignia brand $60 converter that I paid $20 for and will lock onto signals the original DirecTV receiver would never get. I got my coupon when it was initially offered, a little less than a year ago. (Early bird gets the worm) My locals have never looked so good with my $20 converter and $7 antenna.
I am so sick of seeing DTV transition soft-tests and PSAs about the pending transition that I can't wait for it to be over. It's not like you didn't have time to get your stuff in order.
Worst case scenario: On February 17th, you have to pay the full price for the box. $60 instead of $20, because you didn't pay attention. I got a parking ticket recently, I put money in the wrong meter. I was fined $30 because I failed to pay attention.
The boxes exist and are plentiful, if you didn't pay attention and get your free coupon when they had money for them - oh well. That isn't the fault of the Federal Government.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, and I can tell you about cases of people buying boxes, and then trying different antennas, and not being able to get reliable service. They live 20-30 miles from the transmitter. Analog's fine. There are a bunch of densely populated communities in the Northeast that fall into this category. It's not just people who didn't pay attention, it's also people who have tried multiple types of antennas trying to get any stable signal, and can't. And they live places where they can't use roof antennas for one
Re:TV in Los Angeles (Score:5, Informative)
And you can't watch Telemundo and TV Azteca without having seen lots of ads over the last year telling the viewer, in Spanish, changes are coming and you can get a coupon to cut the cost of the box.
It wasn't possible to miss it. I'm tired of excuses.
Switchover was poorly timed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree that that is probably the main reason for wanting a delay. If it is, it smacks of cowardice, not leadership.
Metric was too hard for Americans to learn in the 70's so Carter backed off that.
Let's just admit that sometimes change is painful.
Why so much fear of the future and progress?
Stop pandering to the stupid, lets move forward.
digital tv switch (Score:3, Interesting)
The real reason Obama wants to stop digital... (Score:3, Insightful)
...is because he's afraid people won't be able to watch his infomercials during the 2012 election campaign.
Digital switch in the EU (Score:3, Interesting)
Well here in the EU we are almost done with the switch. I am not sure if there are any regions anymore which are still analog.
It worked out pretty much without flaws.
People on cable basically didnt have to switch, a load of people have satellite receivers those did not have to switch either and many of them already were digital only anyway. That left out around 20% of the population with antennas. Those could get a 30$ refund on the converter boxes. And since the cheaper boxes were around that price it was basically getting such a box for free if you opted for the lowest possible option!
There were almost no complaints in the switch and there was a load of advertisement on TV on how to switch, so the rollout was more or less flawless!
Re:Really that big deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Really that big deal? (Score:5, Informative)
As for "the government paying for it," it's a small fraction of what they sold the reclaimed rf spectrum for.
downgraded cable package (Score:5, Insightful)
MOD parent Up (Score:5, Informative)
I second that. OTA digital is amazingly good picture quality.
Just pick up a cheap amplified loop antenna. You don't need anything fancy.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That works fine, unless you have the typical issues for digital.
In my area, there are supposed to be 12 OTA digital stations (each running two feeds). I can see maybe 7 due to intervening buildings, even with a nice powered antenna on the roof.
Plus, OTA digital has shorter range the same way FM radio has shorter travel range than AM. Just the nature of the signal and how fault-tolerant it is. Rural areas are more screwed by the change since they could make do with a less-powerful signal before and now just
Re:MOD parent Up (Score:5, Informative)
Plus, OTA digital has shorter range the same way FM radio has shorter travel range than AM.
Huh? That's to do with wavelength, not mode or "digital-ness". A few kilowatts at 1MHz will go a damn sight further than a few kilowatts at 100 MHz. Ask any ham. The worldwide contacts are (almost) all under 30MHz.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know the situation in the USA, but in the UK digital TV is broadcast at lower power until the analog signal is switched off (otherwise it would interfere with the analog broadcast). Once the analog signal is switched off they'll increase the digital signal power. (I put that in the future tense, but some areas have already changed, and some won't change until 2012. OTA analog TV is very popular here, about 3/4 of TVs receive it).
Re:MOD parent Up (Score:4, Informative)
In this case, I think your experience won't translate to the US. Europe uses DVB for their digital TV, with (I think) COFDM as the modulation scheme. The US is using ATSC, with 8VSB as the modulation scheme. From what I've read, 8VSB is much more prone to problems with 'multipath'. If your antenna gets a signal directly from a transmitter, and another copy of that signal (slightly delayed) bounced off of a nearby building, then it might be impossible to decode the digital stream. If the two signals are perfectly out-of-phase, even COFDM should fail (again, an assumption on my part), but COFDM is supposed to be more robust in the face of multi-path signals.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sounds like you are close in.
Actually, I'm not. I'm decidedly in the suburbs of one of the 5 largest cities in America. The signals are coming from a pretty wide arc.
Get rid of the antenna preamp. Most have a horrible S/N ratio and just add to the problem with receiver front-end overloading. Switch to a more onmi directional antenna. This would help with the multi path issue.
Forget the sales hype. DTV is in the same band space as conventional TV.
Already omni, same antenna I've used for a long time. Tried
Re:MOD parent Up (Score:5, Informative)
... Depending on where, exactly, you live of course. I get one broadcast station without a rooftop, or 5 with it. With analog, you can get a fuzzy picture, and nearly always get sound. With digital, you either get everything nearly perfectly, or you get nothing (nothing includes picture freezes and no audio.)
The issue with digital is that people that used to get fuzzy but watchable stations now may get nothing.
As for the converter box issue, the whole situation is partially caused by the fact that retailers were allowed to sell analog only sets if they were under a certain size... And larger sets the requirement was only recent (just a few years.)
Also, converter boxes suck. Yet another remote to mess with (remember the users - those who can't handle programming an all-in-one.)
Re:MOD parent Up (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
you'd think that.... but you need less signal to get a good picture. So in the FCC's infinite wisdom, they decided to drop the wattage by 15% so signals don't "overlap"... because somebody might get a football or baseball game too far away, so we're going to make the whole thing harder.
MOD child Up (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this is point is not being emphasized enough. What digital you can get OTA even today is not representative of what you will get after Feb 17. Many stations are not running their digital at full power and others have translators that are not switching until the transition. In my area, geography (i.e. foothills) makes translators essential even for analog, so stations who haven't switched their translators are really hard to get.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In Oregon, there are very few population centers that have broadcast stations -- but a lot of translators to get the signals out into the vast wasteland I call home. And "home" for me is a city of 50,000 people.
This translator issue is why it was particularly stupid for the government not to inclu
Re:Really that big deal? (Score:4, Informative)
One of my best friends depends on their rabbit ears, and they're poor enough that the cost of a converter box is kind of a big deal. And before some asshat who knows nothing of poverty opens their yap about how he shouldn't be watching TV, he busts his ass then comes home and would like to relax in the evening, okay? He and plenty of other people are in this position, and they never wanted to have to drop $40 just so the government could raise $20bil.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
But, in an emergency...like within hurricane effected areas...TV can be lifesaving. Yes, radio helps, but, you can't get the big picture where on radar things are...where the storm may hit (you usually don't know till 24 hours prior or less).
Even if you do have cable...when it gets knocked won by falling trees, etc...you need that OTA as a backup, especially in the weeks after when that and power is out (many houses have generators, we kept going for weeks on one).
So, it i
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Libraries are good and definitely should have funding. Unluckily not everyone is a book reader.
My wife for example does not enjoy reading and uses the TV for entertainment. When the power goes out she gets quite stressed out whereas I just light a candle and grab a book.
She is not going to be happy when we lose a third of our TV stations when America switches over to digital.
Unluckily we are one of the households who have no choice about over the air signals, no cable and a mountain to the south so no satel
Re:Really that big deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe its just me not being poor or actually liking cable, but is OTA TV really that pervasive these days?
Yeah. I've been using OTA television for years. I'm not going to pay for crap I don't want.
PBS is great and should continue to be able to deliver their service free of charge. Especially for the underprivileged.
Don't get me wrong though, I think the change is a good one, but I think the converter boxes should be cheaper.
What if radio changed and you had to purchase converters for every radio you own or they would be useless?
Re:Really that big deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
I would bet money that in six months, the converter boxes will be cheaper. Why sell your box for $25 when you can tack on an extra $25 and expect people to use a coupon?
Re:Really that big deal? (Score:4, Interesting)
Even better. There should be a second wave of more capable converter boxes that don't have the stupid limitations that were imposed on the current ones such as no digital audio outputs, no HD component outs, etc.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which, by the way, is a succinct explanation of why socialized medicine sucks.
That's the theory. Kind of strange that it's the US's supposedly free-market healthcare system that has the reputation of being horrendously expensive, poor value for money and for tying people to jobs with large corporations- via their health plans- if they want anything like decent insurance at acceptable prices. (Either that or take the risk of bankrupting themselves if they get ill.)
(I suppose you're going to blame medicare for dragging down a system that would otherwise be free-market sweetness and p
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What I don't understand is how Americans can afford to buy a $30,000 SUV every five years (totaling ~$300,000 spent over a lifetime), and yet for some reason they lack the money to pay a $6000 medical bill.* It appears they have their priorities messed up, because they are wasting their cash on foolish car purchases instead of saving it for health.
If you can afford to waste thousands on cars and other purchases, then you can also afford the occasional medical bill.
*
* How much my niece spent for a recent k
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's not the $6,000 or even $30,000 hospital bill. It's the $500,000 NICU care for a premature infant, $150,000 for a week in ICU, or $100,000 heart surgery. Only the super-rich could take the risk of self insurance.
Re:Really that big deal? (Score:4, Insightful)
2 things
first $6000 for an operation? hah! not in the usa. I had a friend pay $2500 for a 10-minute cat scan that just happened to not be covered by his insurance. Operations are *always* in the tens of thousands of dollars, even the simple ones.
second, you are talking about two different segments of american society. People who buy $30,000 suvs tend to also have health insurance. We're talking about the lower middle class who buy reasonable mid-size cars and for whom paying $10,000+ per year in just insurance is tough. (that's the norm, including employer contribution) And as the other poster mentions, this is really bankruptcy protection in case that operation is a little more complicated than expected.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that it isn't a free-market health care system -- at least not 50% of it. About half the money spent in health care is Federal/State money.
And that's what drives up prices. You have the private sector competi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, but, I wouldn't want one of them cutting me open and messing around with my internals...or drilling my teeth to fix them.
Yeah...Dr's make a good living these days, but not nearly what they did generations past...bean counters and insurance are the culprits these days. Not to mention, a Dr. is schooled a long time....racks up a TON of loan debt, etc....so, say your a surgeon. YOu start working..it is years before you pay loans off and r
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: why socialised medicine sucks (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like the insurance-companies do now? What's the difference?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Dump the insurance and just pay cash. It's cheaper in the long-run, and takes advantage of the fact that nearly-all people don't get a serious illness until after age 60.
It's silly to waste thousands on insurance when you're still young and healthy & more likely to get hit with an asteroid than fall victim to a mortal illness. (Okay I exaggerated a bit, but you get my point.)
Re:Really that big deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Dump the insurance and just pay cash. It's cheaper in the long-run, and takes advantage of the fact that nearly-all people don't get a serious illness until after age 60.
Small comfort to those who suffer a stroke or heart attack or cancer at younger ages.
It's silly to waste thousands on insurance when you're still young and healthy & more likely to get hit with an asteroid than fall victim to a mortal illness. (Okay I exaggerated a bit, but you get my point.)
You'd think with odds like that a competitive free market insurance industry would be falling over themselves to insure young healthy people for low annual premiums... care to speculate on the fact that they don't?
My theory is that you are simply mistaken.
Re:Really that big deal? (Score:5, Funny)
PBS is great and should continue to be able to deliver their service free of charge
But we can't do it without your help. PBS relies on your donations to keep on the air, and if you aren't donating, that's the same as stealing! If you watch even one second of PBS and don't contribute, you're a thief. A common thief!
Re: (Score:2)
Elmo knows where you live!
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, okay, I'll write you a check later, when the banks open.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's a beautiful day neighbor, to kick your ass!
D'oh! Why did I sign up for insta-trace!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yep. Now contrast that with the Zinwell box which has a manual clock. I can set it to 8:00 and thereby ensure I have a reliable reference when I want to program it to tape 24, or CSI, or whatever.
Don't buy the DTVpal. Buy the Zinwell instead if you need timers. And if you don't need timers, then buy a Channel Master which has the most-sensitive receiver of all the boxes (it gets 21 stations in my area).
Re:Really that big deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Really that big deal? (Score:5, Interesting)
I just hate paying for programming that contains ads. I mean, isn't that what the ads are for?
Yes, the ads are paying for the programming. But not for the access. That's what your cable bill is for -- to pay for the wiring and access to the programming.
Or to put it another way, are you surprised that have to pay a bill to your ISP -and- you see ads on cnn.com?
I really don't know why people find the cable-TV concept so confusing.
[and yes, I realize cable is a bit more complicated, in that there are arrangements where cable kicks up some money to a channel for carrying the channel, but that isn't enough to pay for most programming. The point still stands.]
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
According to this web site (http://dtvfacts.com/latest/530/how-many-americans-watch-tv-over-the-air/) approximately 15.5 million U.S. households watch TV over the air exclusively - presumably receiving analog (NTSC) signals. So a significant number of households will be affected. But they've already delayed the digital TV switch over once. I would recommend that they free up the necessary funds to provide the coupons for the folks who need them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
US Population - Cable Subscribers - Satellite subscribers means
households watch TV over the air exclusively.
How many of those people live in area which do not get a good signal.
How many of these people just don't watch TV.
How many of these people don't have TV or a Working TV.
How many already have the converter.
How many have a TV that doesn't need a convert.
How many will get one later this month.
Numbers don't lie. But they are quite vague.
Re: (Score:2)
I had a promo deal for cable for six months. The service was so terrible from Comcast that I canceled. It was most definitely not worth $50 a month. Except for that, since 1995 I have been OTA only.
Re: (Score:2)
Heh, I'm opposite, but with you. I've always had cable, from AT&T cable(yes, they had it!) to Comcast to Dish w/ DVR. Once I moved, I decided no more, and I've been OTA for a long time. The caveat is I'm on a Mac Mini w/ EyeTV so I get digital already, and have been for a few years now.
Re: (Score:2)
Something doesn't add up here. The article says:
7.8 million households, representing 6.8 percent of homes with television, have not upgraded any of their television sets for the transition. Those homes would be unable to receive any TV signals after the switch.
and
Subscribers to cable or satellite television will not be affected by the transition.
which would suggest 100 million (ish) households with terrestrial TV and the tiny remainder (I'm guessing) on cable.
Wikipedia links to some numbers from 2006 that suggest 60% of "homes" subscribe to basic cable and an effective 100% cable coverage ratio.
The number of homes seems low (I'd have expected ~160 million and the cable coverage way too high (the numbers actually suggest > 100%, which must mean that apples and oranges are being compared somewher
Re: (Score:2)
Figure if I save $50/month, that has saved me at least $6000 over the past decade.
Re:Really that big deal? (Score:5, Interesting)
My mother still has broadcast TV. No cable. She's not the only one I know. There are a lot of lower income people that can't afford the high monthly prices of subscription TV. Don't look at just your own peer group to decide whether or not something is ubiquitous.
The snag though is that the Digital TV signal isn't that great where she is, and she's going to lose one of her favorite channels that comes in quite well over analog.
NOAA (Score:4, Informative)
In my experience of NOAA weather radios they are far more reliable because with all weather radios I've seen so far operate off of batteries which will allow the radio to continue to operate with or without power to the home compared to that of TVs where well: no power, no TV, no weather information.
I have read a few articles that give the impression that once analog broadcasts are turned off then the digital broadcasts will be allowed to boost their power output, but by how much I have no idea. Hopefully this is true because some stations broadcasting in the same county as on the receiving end is just terribly difficult to pickup. The worst so far is WTVF (CBS) here in Nashville, Tennessee that I have noticed.
Re:The American Public Will Never Learn (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't even need my two [coupons], but picked them up anyways.
Uhh, I think they ran out of money because they have allocated it all towards coupons that have been distributed, but haven't been redeemed or expired.
In other words, you (and those like you) are part of the reason the program has run out of funding.
([coupons] assumed based on your post. If you meant [converter boxes], blowing taxpayer money and carbon dioxide for two pieces of junk to sit in your garage is equally foolish.)
Re:The American Public Will Never Learn (Score:4, Funny)
I would recommend that everybody should get their coupon, even if they have cable, if for no other reason than emergency preparedness. Sometimes you may need to catch a broadcast while the cable feeding to your living room is on the fritz.
The cost of the coupon program is (a) a small fraction of the profit made by auctioning off the frequencies, and (b) a small fraction of the money this is costing consumers who are being forced into upgrading.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not really, the emergency broadcast system goes over the air for a reason. If something happens and the cable provider goes down, unless you have a ASTC tuner, you get nothing, no reports that the flood is coming closer to your house, no reports that the Storm that knocks the poles over severing your cable has produced Tornadoes coming at you or hail the size of softballs- nothing at all. There was a propane leak at a facility near where I live. Someone over filled a large tank and it started venting in the
Re: (Score:2)
Y2K was a joke.
FCC Analog Nightlight Rules (Arstechnica) (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, they sort of are doing something like that.
Ars ran a story last week, FCC okays DTV "analog nightlight" rules [arstechnica.com]. Unfortunately, it's only for 30 days - seems like it should be 90 or 180 days. Also, apparently, this doesn't apply to all markets [multichannel.com], so I think the FCC is kind of messing up there.
Partly, though, I'm confused about how anyone could possibly not know about the digital TV transition and not be prepared for it at this point? Every time I try to watch OTA broadcasts using my digital converter box,
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Consider the JVC DRMV100B DVD+VHS Recorder. This is a unit with a VHS VCR, a DVD R/W/RW drive, an NTSC tuner, and an ATSC tuner. It's under $200. It's stocked by mainstream outlets like Amazon and Sam's Club. With this, she can program the unit to record her soaps to tape just as she does now. Once she's comfortable with that, she can switch over to DVD RW blanks instead of tape.
The thing even up-converts to 1080p and has an HDMI output, so it will work with a modern display. Or you can get out S-Vi