Senate Passes Another Bill To Delay Digital TV Transition 318
An anonymous reader tips news that the US Senate has passed another bill to delay the transition to digital TV. This is the second such bill to pass the Senate; the first was narrowly defeated in the House. The new version has an important difference — it would allow the transition to take place gradually over the four-month period between the original transition date (February 17th) and the extended date (June 12th). TV stations around the country could choose when they wanted to make the change, allowing those who have already begun plans to stop analog transmission to continue their shut-down operations.
How much MORE is this costing us? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm someone who doesn't watch much TV. I'm sure other people could go a few days (or however long it takes them to find out what's wrong with their television set) without TV. Now, how much MORE is this bill costing me in taxpayer dollars? And you justify this HOW?
Re:How much MORE is this costing us? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because some people took no action to get a DTV tuner, and now the government feels really bad about it. Naturally, their response is to delay everything. Those people are never going to be ready.
Re:How much MORE is this costing us? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yup. But IT WILL WORK.
We switched to digital TV long ago in Finland (Honestly, I can't understand how you guys in the promised land of TV can be so far behind in this matter. What the hell is taking you so long?). It was delayed once due to not enough people having bought tuners. Then, they noticed that after the delay a lot of people still hadn't bought but didn't delay it more. And guess what? Within the last few weeks before the old broadcasts ending, the rest of the people bought them.
Why would they have bought the tuners earlier? The longer you wait, the cheaper the technology gets and the better tuner you can buy. We bought our digibox well before we would have needed to but if we had bought one on last possible occasion, there would have been better models on the market for the same price...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
>We switched to digital TV long ago in Finland (Honestly, I can't
>understand how you guys in the promised land of TV can be so
>far behind in this matter.
My experience, from living in various countries, is that the US is generally a bit behind the curve when it comes to consumer electronics technology, such as tv. We do tend to have more interesting things to watch on our tvs though.
Re:How much MORE is this costing us? (Score:5, Insightful)
No to mention a population and land size about a zillion times larger. That complicates public service/standards programs.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
While I agree that most of our States are odd, it's not quite fair to call them all odd.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If it's like my area; those stations that are transmitting both analog and digital channels are transmitting the digital ones at about a tenth less strength. I suggest they(or you) visit antennaweb [antennaweb.org] or TV Fool [tvfool.com] to find out the relative transmitting powers for their area.
Once they shut off the analog transmitters they're generally going to step up the power on their digital stations.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
>We switched to digital TV long ago in Finland (Honestly, I can't
>understand how you guys in the promised land of TV can be so
>far behind in this matter.
My experience, from living in various countries, is that the US is generally a bit behind the curve when it comes to consumer electronics technology, such as tv. We do tend to have more interesting things to watch on our tvs though.
Please tell. Quote your source.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I know what you were going for, "American TV sucks", but if you're not going to do it right leave the comment for someone else to make.
Re: (Score:2)
Atleast you had HD way before us over here in Europe.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
True . Where i live , it's comparable : we have 2 competing firms selling digital tv , and now they are in the heat of promotion , basically giving away the tuners , and providing months of free extra channels ( offcourse , the do this so you pay for them afterwards ) .
If we had just bought it at the start, we would have had to pay for the tuner, without the free months.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
(Honestly, I can't understand how you guys in the promised land of TV can be so far behind in this matter. What the hell is taking you so long?)
Let's see - Finland's population = 5,244,749 (July 2008 est.)USA = 303,824,640 (July 2008 est.). Estimates courtesy of the CIA Factbook.
If my home state of Massachusetts mandated such a switch, with a population only slightly less than Finland's, I think it would have happened, ya think?
Re:How much MORE is this costing us? (Score:5, Informative)
Some people took action, but didn't get one.
I was in the store in the early days of the coupon thing looking for digital tuners to compare. Best Buy and the other stores were totally out of them. If I gotten my coupons back then I might not have been able to get one because the coupons expire in 30 days.
Right now a lot of people have applied for coupons, but they are out. So although those folks took action and applied, they won't be getting one until the govt decides to print out another batch.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So, heres my caveat. Why is everyone entitled to a coupon? Is there some law that you shouldn't have to upgrade your technology unless the government subsidizes the cost?
Buy the damn box, or go without tv. Its not that complicated. Hell, Ill bet a good portion of the converters sold belong to people who have cable/satellite and don't even need them.
Re:How much MORE is this costing us? (Score:4, Insightful)
There is this little bit of law we have about the government
not being able to take things away from you. Now since it was
the government that forced everyone's old devices to become
useless, they have a responsibility to help with the aftermath.
Although if this whole thing weren't one big moneygrab by
electronics companies, the transition might have occured
without the need for excessively priced replacement hardware.
Nevermind the $50 converter box. You should be able to get
a small ATSC TV for that much. Digital has been conflated
with HDTV and content encryption.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How much MORE is this costing us? (Score:5, Informative)
"Why is everyone entitled to a coupon?"
Because the government sold a public resource, the airwaves, to private companies. The funds from that sale go to provide the money for the coupons.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or maybe those 'lazy' people just aren't ignorant as you appear to be about the program.
As I already replied to other posters, the government sold a public resource, the airwaves, to a handful of private companies. Funds from that sale went to provide the coupons, so it's not a boondoggle of any size. It's a valid way of making up for loss of the use of those public airwaves.
American's are still "can do". Some are just more ignorant about how things work than others.
Re:How much MORE is this costing us? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The coupon program represents less than 1/10th of one percent the 1500 billion spent to bailout banks & other rich fat asses. I see nothing wrong with spending some of the government's spare charge (sic) to help the workers for a change.
I don't care if it represents a nickel. I'm completely opposed to bailing out Wall Street in the first place, and that "spare change" you regard so flippantly happens to be a portion of our tax dollars.
I wasn't referring to the cost of the electricity to run the TV; I was referring to the cost of the TV itself. People seem to be able to find hundreds of dollars to buy nice television sets, only to turn around and scream bloody murder over the prospect of having to buy a cheap converter box. It's ridiculo
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
>>>happens to be a portion of our tax dollars.
False. TV channels 52 to 69 were sold-off for around 1 billion dollars, and that is the money being used to upgrade poor & middle ncome televisions NOT taxpayer dollars. You would known this is you got off you Libertarian wacky tobaccy and did some actual RESEARCH. (Yeah I now - you thought after you graduated, you wouldn't need to do that anymore. Wrong!)
If my TV, VCR, and DVR stops working on February 17 and I don't receive my
Going postal (Score:3, Funny)
it's fear. If tens of million of people can't watch TV for a week, there's going to be a lot of grumpy people. I suspect that some people won't even be able to sleep without their before bedtime TV ritual.
Just like when there's a black out and there's increase rioting there will be people milling around with nothing to do looking for trouble.
Yes a few "enlightened" individuals will have a rebirth as they discover life without TV. I predict a raft of books on the topic of self actualization in 6 months.
B
Re: (Score:2)
What do flat panel TVs have to do with the switch at all? You do realize that old CRTs will continue to work perfectly, right? This is all about signal decoding and if the TV is capable of decoding the signal properly, not about how it's d
Re:Going postal (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fear (Score:2)
Maybe you're right, but the wrong way around. There is huge money being made by certain parties through fear. Guns are being sold because of fear. Security checkpoints are being installed because of fear. People are being kept in power because of fear. But how can you maintain that fear when the propaganda machinery can't speak to the people? How can the US Military keep their big fat war budget going if Joe Sixpack loses the fear that Mohammed Al Qaeda is going to repossess his motor hom
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Nothing besides the pay for the senators that should be doing something else.
It's all paid for out of the sale price of the freed spectrum. And that price isn't changing.
---
What bothers me a lot more about all of this is that, barely mentioned as an aside during transition conversation, is that many channels will be moving frequencies of their digital stations during the transition.
Every single local station in Austin has a digital broadcast already. I receive them all wonderfully with my little antenna p
Re:How much MORE is this costing us? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I might lose any stations that move back into VHF.
This is unlikely.
Very few stations are choosing to move their digital signal to any of the VHF-Low (2-6) channels, and only a very few UHF antennas won't get good enough reception on VHF-Hi (7-13).
Austin has only Fox choosing a VHF-Hi channel (7) as their final digital frequency. See here [rabbitears.info] for more information on the final channel assignments and when and how they expect to make the change.
Re:How much MORE is this costing us? (Score:5, Informative)
Uh, they've already sold off the old frequency used by the analog stations to Verizon. They aren't moving the digital stations.
Because of the analog stations still in operation and the interference issues from so many (digital AND analog) stations being on at once, some of the digital transmitters operating now are on temporary channels and WILL move again at transition time. That certainly applies to the stations using channels above 51.
Although your digital receiver probably displays a number with a decimal after it as the channel, much of the time that number is the old analog channel not the channel actually being used for the digital transmission.
With stations shifting around and a few new ones appearing, viewers will need to use the scan-channel or add channel functions to get the new/moved signals. So even those that think they're already set up have a little work left to do to see everything that their equipment can get.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Seriously, who can repair digital electronics nearly as easily as the analog counterparts?"
Nobody, but how much does that have to do with current NTSC TV technology? I expect that if you open up a recent NTSC TV, you'll see ICs and surface mount technology used as much as possible, and relatively few things that are don't cost more to repair than to replace.
Great (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh, yeah, that'll work (Score:5, Informative)
Firstly, there's a pigeonhole problem here -- in order for some stations to take up their final digital frequency assignments, other stations will have to move theirs (usually back to their analog channel). This is one of the main reasons it was to be done all at once in the first place.
Secondly, this is going to be even MORE confusing. OK, so the person living in a cave for the past few months who comes out turns on their TV on February 18 would have gotten nothing. But at least they'd have some clue that something is wrong. With a gradual transition, maybe they'll lose CBS but not NBC and Fox... then the next month they'll lose Fox but keep CBS, etc. That's not making things any simpler.
Re:Oh, yeah, that'll work (Score:4, Informative)
All our local channels say they aren't delaying, no matter what the congress decides. There are reports last time this came up that some stations have already switched.
Imagine you're running IT/electrical for one of these channels. You've been planning for months to shut everything off on a certain date. You're planning on rolling out digital channels in early Feb and cutting the analog mid Feb, it'll cost a ton to just switch that plan up.
Re: (Score:2)
Congress (or the FCC given enough authority from Congress) can say "If you want to keep your digital license, you have to keep your analog station running until the transition."
Of course, if they do that, it'll be a major problem for stations with facilities leased until 2/17/2009...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
On the other hand a station can turn around and say "we have already made all the arrangements to switch and can't rely on the hardware even still being there after the 17th of Feb."
the networks seem to be pushing for it (Score:2)
While the local channels are likely to face technical problems by a delay, the networks themselves seem to be part of the group lobbying for a delay, hoping [yahoo.com] the switchover can take place after their seasons end.
Re: (Score:2)
Slowly Now (Score:5, Insightful)
<
ONE question (Score:2)
WHY?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:ONE question (Score:5, Interesting)
It is Clearwire that has a vested interest in this delay. They are attempting to roll out WiMax service to compete with the broadband 4G service Verizon is planning to offer on the freed up analog frequencies.
And guess which company one of the executives on Obama's DTV transition team works for? That's right, Clearwire...
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/01/4g-war-conflict-of-interests-loom-behind-possible-dtv-delay.ars [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, Clearwire isn't involved in the DTV transition.
Clearwire and Sprint have a near-lock on the 2500-2690 MHz band. Nextel and Sprint (before the merger) had been buying up licenses there, some of which were originally MMDS "wireless cable" (an early-1990s failure). They also have leases on some of the educational channels there (held by universities, schools, and churches -- the Catholic Church is the largest holder).
The 700 MHz bands were auctioned off, with Verizon, ATT, T-Mobile, and other cellular/mo
PLEASE stop (Score:5, Interesting)
colossal failure of broadcast media (Score:4, Insightful)
I wonder why don't TV stations show an overlay banner saying "This station is available on digital channel ##. The analog channel will be discontinued at DATE. Please contact your local electronics store for how to receive digital broadcast."
Having people who watch analog TV suddenly go blank without knowing they should switch to digital, that is the colossal failure of broadcast media that can't disseminate information to their audience.
Re: (Score:2)
The stations around here have all been covering the changeover as news stories for months now, including explaining what to do to be able to keep watching. I assume it's the same elsewhere.
Overlay banners are annoying. Especially if they would run 24x7
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, no, they can't do that, they're too busy showing ads for Pepsi or the next reality show or their own translucent logo in the lower right corner of the broadcasts. There's no room for anything that's actually helpful.
Re:colossal failure of broadcast media (Score:4, Interesting)
Why???!?? (Score:5, Insightful)
What the fuck is the point of this? That spectrum has a new use which is only getting delayed yet again because of this. Why are they delaying? Its not like TV is something that you can't live without. And if you still haven't figured out that you need to upgrade your TV then either you: A) don't have a brain B) are senile and will probably never get the point C) rarely use your TV so it doesn't matter anyway. If they do this stupid delay I hope they at least make the analog required to just display 24/7 a text message stating that they need a digital TV or converter box with audio of a person reading it it in English and Spanish. Maybe then the last of the morons might get it.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is likely to cost plenty of people money they can't afford.
Its not like TV is something that you can't live without.
Anyone who really can't can probably scrape enough money together to buy a converter box. No doubt every TV "repairman" has made sure they have plenty to hand for that weekend
If you don't like it... (Score:3, Insightful)
then please be sure to write your congressman and let them know. It was narrowly defeated last time, so the more people complaining the better chance it will be defeated again.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If you don't like it... (Score:4, Interesting)
The real solution is to stop voting for incumbents. Nothing's going to change until we get rid of career politicians.
If they got to Congress, they already are career politicians.
Re: (Score:2)
And for those of us who like our incumbents? It's not like they were elected last time because everyone disliked them so much.
Change for the sake of change isn't helpful, and it's not going to fix much of anything.
Death of Broadcast Television (Score:5, Insightful)
After seeing enough reports on the switch on TV, my wife who hates computers, asked me last night "Can you find the shows I watch online?" After we found them, she then said "What do we need the TV for?" And that is the big question.
My kids haven't watched TV, other than something in a restaurant or doctor's waiting room, in a couple years now. They watch everything online. Of the three shows my wife watches, two are available online at the network sites and the third can be found via torrents. Actually, all three are available on the network sites, it is just ABC USES SOME FUCKING PROPRIETARY PLAYER THAT DOESN'T WORK ON LINUX! Thus, we either live without that show (no big deal) or hit Pirate Bay. ABC, are you listening? Just use a standard Flash player like everyone else.
While some of the people still watching broadcast TV don't have broadband, most of those fall into the "old people -- gonna die soon" demographic. What happens to broadcast in 10 years?
Re: (Score:2)
While some of the people still watching broadcast TV don't have broadband, most of those fall into the "old people -- gonna die soon" demographic.
ABC USES SOME FUCKING PROPRIETARY PLAYER THAT DOESN'T WORK ON LINUX!
I think the group of people that miss out on ABC because they use Linux may be smaller than the number that would miss out on ABC because they didn't get a tuner box yet.
Linux users are in such a small demographic, I doubt any major media company would miss them, it's still too small of a niche.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but I bitched none-the-less. :-)
I was just pointing out that both CBS and NBC seem to use a standard Flash player and I didn't have these issues with their competitors. I'll happily do without ABC.
Re: (Score:2)
> I think the group of people that miss out on ABC because they use Linux may
> be smaller than the number that would miss out on ABC because they didn't get
> a tuner box yet.
If ABC chooses to do things differently for no good reason, they risk
their solution having other problems that won't effect their rivals.
This isn't necessarily just about Linux. They could cause more trouble
for their Windows viewership. Will it break with Firefox or Opera? Will
it break with a different version of Windows or IE?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm 28, technologically savvy and I watch free, broadcast TV. Because I refuse to pay for the crap they're offering these days. If there's nothing on... I know that I'm not pay $60/m for it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't watch broadcast TV (because there aren't many shows on that I want to watch), but I still have a digital TV tuner. It's nice to be able to tune in for big events like the Olympics, or the Super Bowl (if you're into that), or local news when there's a wildfire nearby and things of that nature. And PBS occasionally has something I want to watch, and their digital TV content is usually terrific.
The Internet is only a replacement for TV if the only use you have for TV is viewing packaged shows. (And e
Let your "yes" be yes and your "no" be no (Score:5, Insightful)
That should be the motto of our government. If the government sets a deadline, they should hold to it, instead of wasting time and tax dollars by pushing back the finish line. What's wrong with making a decision and sticking to it, if there is no quantified risk to continue?
Just ensure that the vouchers are getting out to the people who haven't received them already. The people can do the rest. If they procrastinate, then let them reap the benefits of procrastination.
Apologies if I sound troll.
So no more analog torrent files then? (Score:4, Funny)
The REAL cost of delaying the switch. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds like a good reason for the station owners to kill their analog towers on schedule.
Re:The REAL cost of delaying the switch. (Score:5, Insightful)
Read the story again. Stations can switch over any time they want during the 4 month period. Have all your ducks in a row and don't want to waste money? Go ahead and switch.
One of the local stations is switching to new frequencies and a new tower and had some delays getting all the new equipment they were buying. Now they've got it but they can't get it installed at the moment because it's the middle of the freaking winter here, and installing new equipment outside is a PITA when a foot of new snow fell in the past couple days.
Giving the 4 month window allows my local station to wait a few weeks for a window of good weather in the forcast to get all the new equipment set up easily and safely for their workers. If they want to delay a few weeks for ease and safety, letting them sounds like a good idea, doesn't it?
That's the REAL story.
Re: (Score:2)
That has been my experience with low income people as well.. They are either so attached to the low quality media on cable that they are willing to pay for it or don't understand the value of money. I know alot more middle class people who earn a good salary and certainly could divert a little money from savings to cable and choose not to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
It's even worst that than that since with digital you can have several "stations" on one "channel". Which you'd think would keep the "greenies"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Email me and I'll send you the address you can send my new TV to.
Seriously, /. is not a representative sample. We're tech people so of course we all have cable/satellite, have known about the transition since the beginning, and know how to download shows off the Internet. For us, Feb 17th is just another day, but for a lot of people it's going to be a big surprise.
For example, my cable company has been running ads that make Feb 17th sound like the end of a sale their having, not the end of analog broadcast.
A waste of effort. (Score:5, Insightful)
It just kills me that the Obama administration has chosen this issue to be one to focus on. Television? I watch it, I don't have a problem with it. I'm not one of those people who triumphantly claim they don't watch television as if it makes them smarter.
But let's get real here. Television just isn't all that important, especially compared to say... health care, the economy, energy, torture, "the terrorists", North Korea, Putin, Russia, global warming, the housing crisis, Israel/Palestinian, New Orleans, Iraq, Afghanistan, Melamine, Salmonella, Gitmo, domestic spying, illegal immigration, crumbling infra-structure, and a host of other issues I'd rather just forget about. Each of those expands into a whole different set of problems, and they all interact with one another.
But.. the television switchover that's been going on in some fashion for the last 10 years is one of the FIRST issues the administration has chosen to take on. Why? I have my suspicions, mostly about Democrats being in bed with Big Content (hey, whenever you refer to Big it's bad.. right?).
The justification is just bizarre. The poor and technically inept might be without TV for a little while. I know around here we like to brow-beat anyone that's "stupid", or a technophile as if they deserve what they get. I'm not a big believer in that, but I am a believer in priorities. The people who television is THAT important to have gotten a converter. The people remaining might just have to go without for a while until they decide it's a priority. But yet this whole thing gets sold to us like it's an essential element to survival. Just yesterday I saw an ad from a local broadcaster urging people to "help their neighbors" in making sure they can get the digital broadcast, as if a hurricane has torn down houses, or a snowstorm has buried everyone in snow. This isn't a disaster... It's just television.
Re:A waste of effort. (Score:5, Insightful)
But Television is today's form of circuses. It keeps the general unwashed masses happy, entertained, and more worried about what happened on Idol as apposed to people worrying or taking an interest in health care, the economy, energy, torture, "the terrorists", North Korea, Putin, Russia, global warming et. al.
Re: (Score:3)
A lot of people depend on tv for news so in a disaster it could be crucial information, though I will point out that there's radio as well in such an incident. But more relevant to the everyday, the tv is a source of news in the home and considering that most people are more visually oriented, tv is a better medium than the radio for most information.
And yes, there do exist places where there is no broadband and with the recession, some newspapers have decided to cut off delivery service so that people can
Re: (Score:2)
How is "The Senate" = "The Obama Administration"?
Obama is doing almost nothing about this bill, although I don't think he would veto it.
Individual Representatives and Senators, who are very concerned with elderly people who have nothing to do but watch TV and vote, are driving pretty much the whole thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because Obama supports the delay doesn't mean it's either his or his administration's focus.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you looked at what obama has spent his time with each day since getting in power? Hes made front page news with something he was changing almost every day....
Re: (Score:2)
It just kills me that the Obama administration has chosen this issue to be one to focus on. Television? [...] But let's get real here. Television just isn't all that important,
If The People can't see what The Media wants them to see, then the push by The Media to get into Obama elected would be wasted. And no, I didn't vote for McCain or Barr; I just objectively agree that there was one-sided coverage.
Re: (Score:2)
it is conceivable that the administration can do more than one thing at a time.
They can. But any administration has a limited amount of things they can do. With ALL the issues I just listed, can you really say they can address all of them before we look at the TV thing? There's a limited amount of political capital to spend for any politician. Spending it on something so trivial is stupid and wasteful.
One could also point out that a lot of people get their news from TV so to them it is important.
That's
What is the problem? (Score:2)
Re:What is the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Our big friendly goverment decided to give away the boxes you reference, FOR FREE. They did this by issuing coupons worth $50 or so IIRC. Like most things given away by the government for free, lots of people who didn't need them got two or three of these boxes and stuck them on a shelf in their garage, where they're still collecting dust. Of course, the coupons ran out, and now some in our congress are claiming that the program was underfunded. It's a typical Washington clusterfuck -- exactly the sort of thing that happens when bureaucrats decide there's a huge "problem" somewhere and its solution requires spending tens of millions of our tax dollars.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They're not free because even with the coupon, you still have to pay $15 or so to get a box, so I suspect many "unneeded" coupons will never be redeemed.
And they're not your tax dollars because the proceeds for the program came from the sale of the reclaimed RF spectrum.
Re:What is the problem? (Score:5, Funny)
The problem is that when Abraham Lincoln and Jesse Helms wrote the constitution, they made it a right for the American people to have television. Now, 350 years later, congress changed the way TV has always been delivered - from an anolog microsft tower in Denver to a newer more technologically advanced 60 watt digital station located in Southern Pennsylvania.
The confusion has resulted in NASCAR cancelling their season, resulting in billions of dollars in lost revenue for Bud Light (a subsidiary of the Coors Brewing Company located in South Africa).
I hope that helps.
Re: (Score:2)
I would venture a guess what triggered this was problems in the DTV coupon program [dtv2009.gov].
This program offers each household up to two coupons. (in the form of cards, similar to a debit card) Each coupon could be redeemed for US$40 off the price of a digital receiver. Digital receivers are selling for around US$60-65.
The coupon program has more or less run out of money. "more or less" because they're finding many, many coupons are being ordered but never redeemed. They do have an expiration period. (90 days)
Re: (Score:2)
This program offers each household up to two coupons. (in the form of cards, similar to a debit card) Each coupon could be redeemed for US$40 off the price of a digital receiver. Digital receivers are selling for around US$60-65.
Another thing you can expect is that the absolute minimum price of such a unit is that value of the coupon. Which may have kept the price artificially high in the US. In places without such "assista
The old bill allowed analogs off early too. (Score:4, Informative)
The original bill [loc.gov] didn't require analog stations to stay on until June either.
(if the link breaks, try this PDF link [gpo.gov])
See Sec. 4, paragraph (a) which states in part: "Nothing in this Act is intended to prevent a licensee of a television broadcast station from terminating the broadcasting of such station's analog television signal (and continuing to broadcast exclusively in the digital television service) prior to the date established by law under section 3002(b) of the Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005 for termination of all licenses for full-power television stations in the analog television service (as amended by section 2 of this Act) so long as such prior termination is conducted in accordance with the Federal Communications Commission's requirements in effect on the date of enactment of this Act,.."
(typical government wordiness)
What it means is that before this bill was introduced, stations could sign off their analogs before Feb. 17th upon giving 30 days notice to the FCC and the viewers. Should the bill pass into law, paragraph (a) ensures they can still sign off before June 12th, again provided they give 30 days notice.
Several hundred stations have already given such notice. Including most of the major-network affiliates in Nashville, New Orleans, and Wichita among other cities.
The proposed new bill [loc.gov] (PDF version [gpo.gov]) contains the same paragraph.
Re: (Score:2)
The Other White Meat... (Score:2, Insightful)
The Pork was lacking, so a message was sent and the bill failed. Hopefully the lobbyists and the authors of the next version get it right and grease all the palms sufficiently next time. There is NO way the US Guv is going to unplug a couple million baby-sitters and chance widespread formation of individual thoughts and consternation. Ain't gonna happen.
My $0.02 (Score:3, Funny)
If they had set the cut off date to Feb 1st (Super Bowl Sunday), I bet all of those lazy ass idiots would have scrambled to get their boxes cut over. Now THAT would have generated a "stimulus package" without costing us any $$. Circuit City might even have remained in business, too. :-)
Are you prepared for CHANNEL REASSIGNMENTS? (Score:4, Interesting)
The delay is justified, for two reasons. First, the coupon program was bungled, and running out of coupons shows that consumers are NOT clueless, MORE have responded than expected, because they are doing their best to prepare.
Second, as nearly as I can tell, nothing is being done to prepare consumers for the channel reassignments that will occur along with the analog shutdown. A significant number of stations will be changing their assigned frequency for digital transmission, and quite a lot of them will be changing from UHF to VHF.
At the very least you'll need to do a channel rescan. If I were a station like WHDH, the big Channel 7 NBC affiliate in Boston, I'd long since have posted directions on my website telling people about this and, if possible, telling them how to do a manual channel rescan. But they haven't.
Now, if you have a honkin' big old UHF/VHF rooftop antenna left over from the eighties, and you buy a converter box, you'll be fine. But if you bought one of those nice, compact, inexpensive "HDTV antenna" they've been selling for several years now, that, my friends, is a UHF antenna and you'll lose any digital stations that move to VHF. Maybe not, if they're powerful enough. But I don't know how on earth you can find out before the actual moment arrives.
And if you don't have a big honkin' VHF antenna on your roof already, February 17th is not a great time to be up there installing one.
So, check antennaweb.org [antennaweb.org] for those channel reassignments, because I suspect some of the smug digerati are not quite as prepared for the transition as they think they are.
Re: (Score:2)
As it turns out, nothing. [loc.gov]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Some of the digital stations aren't yet at full power. But you might need an outdoor antenna. One tree doesn't usually do that much harm to TV signals (below 700 MHz).
The FCC's "map book" shows that the Houston DTV stations will have comparable, but not identical, coverage.
http://www.fcc.gov/dtv/markets/
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, DTV is absolutely terrible quality compared to analog for anyone who lives more than a couple dozen miles from the tower. With analog, if the signal was weak, you got some white noise over the picture and sound, but it was still totally watchable. With DTV, all you get is a black screen. It is utterly unusable. As soon as the switch happens, I won't be able to watch my local news ever again. *sigh*
Re: (Score:2)
Looking at the FCC TV database [fcc.gov], it seems Houston has or will have a number of DTV stations operating at effective power at or near a million Watts, and with pretty fair effective antenna height (500 meters or so). Coverage looks pretty good compared to what many see in more mountainous areas.
Coverage also depends much on terrain. You can get a pretty good idea what to expect from the tvfool coverage maps [tvfool.com] which take terrain into account. If you're out in the blue it takes more work...
I looked at a couple
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The suicide and murder rate would jump by 100x atleast within 6hours.