# Digital Transition postponed til June 12



## DAccardi (Oct 26, 2008)

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/01/27/digital.tv.transition.delay/index.html


----------



## JohnBrowning (Jul 15, 2004)

Stupid move. This has dragged on WAY TOO LONG already.


and, I don't feel handicapped whatsoever.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

It's the right thing to do, albeit not perfect. For my own selfish purposes, I'd want the transition in February as planned -- mostly just to see what happens -- but I recognize that the country is not ready. I just hope the new administration does a better job there (they couldn't do too much worse). It's a better time of year for it, too.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

Maybe I can't read but that article says the senate approved a bill. I see nothing in their about the house approving it.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

wmcbrine said:


> It's the right thing to do, albeit not perfect. For my own selfish purposes, I'd want the transition in February as planned -- mostly just to see what happens -- but I recognize that the country is not ready. I just hope the new administration does a better job there (they couldn't do too much worse). It's a better time of year for it, too.


We're at 5-7% of the total households in the US not being ready.
I submit that most of them will never be ready until the switch is thrown.


----------



## LBCABob (Apr 21, 2001)

Wonder if any stations have the guts (are even permitted?) to avoid the extra expense of keeping old transmitters running and go ahead with the change on schedule? Hawaii already switched completely but maybe they had some sort of waiver from FCC? The station would risk taking a hit with their ratings #'s and thus lose ad revenue so doubt they would go it alone.


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

JYoung said:


> We're at 5-7% of the total households in the US not being ready.
> I submit that most of them will never be ready until the switch is thrown.


And I agree with that statement.

However, it would be more prudent to delay the switch until warmer weather, which would be more kind to the person who may need to install new rooftop gear in order to adequately receive quality OTA signals. Having to climb up to the roof in the dead of winter cannot be pleasant.

Cheers!
-Doug


----------



## LifeIsABeach (Feb 28, 2001)

They need to schedule a day/time when all stations turn off their analog signal at the same time for an hour or so. Only something like that will start waking people up. Individual stations doing it for a few minutes here and there will not do the trick.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

Yay! A third thread about this!

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=7024395#post7024395
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=7024834#post7024834


----------



## barbeedoll (Sep 26, 2005)

Adam1115 said:


> Yay! A third thread about this!
> 
> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=7024395#post7024395
> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=7024834#post7024834


You made me laugh out loud. I needed that on a day when I've been expounding about how annoying I find the "More About" banner that pops up whenver I press pause.

Thanks.

Barbeedoll


----------



## DAccardi (Oct 26, 2008)

Adam1115 said:


> Yay! A third thread about this!
> 
> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=7024395#post7024395
> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=7024834#post7024834


Actually blister there are 4. would you like a link to it?


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

LBCABob said:


> Wonder if any stations have the guts (are even permitted?) to avoid the extra expense of keeping old transmitters running and go ahead with the change on schedule?


Yes, the local PBS in my area is doing this because they can't afford running but analog and digital any longer. I suspect with the economy you may see a lot more than expected go ahead and switch. So if this passes, it seems it is just going to cause more confusion than if they switched everything at once.


----------



## RoyK (Oct 22, 2004)

JYoung said:


> We're at 5-7% of the total households in the US not being ready.
> I submit that most of them will never be ready until the switch is thrown.


There are 5-7% of the people who are surprised by Christmas every year!


----------



## Einselen (Apr 25, 2006)

Holy crap Batman! Another thread on the same damn topic?!


----------



## DAccardi (Oct 26, 2008)

Einselen said:


> Holy crap Batman! Another thread on the same damn topic?!


Yes, there are 4 others, would you like a link to them?


----------



## Einselen (Apr 25, 2006)

DAccardi said:


> Yes, there are 4 others, would you like a link to them?


Nope I already have subscribed to them all


----------



## newskilz (Jul 11, 2008)

dstoffa said:


> And I agree with that statement.
> 
> However, it would be more prudent to delay the switch until warmer weather, which would be more kind to the person who may need to install new rooftop gear in order to adequately receive quality OTA signals. Having to climb up to the roof in the dead of winter cannot be pleasant.
> 
> ...


I see your point. However, if the person is already using OTA, then the switch to digital will change nothing unless they are on the fringes of reception. Because there is no real difference needed for the antenna itself to pick up either analog or digital since they both are using the same wavelengths, albeit removing the VHF frequencies.


----------



## restart88 (Mar 9, 2002)

I really think the postponement is a mistake. People were just lazy. How long must we reward laziness and poor planning?

At worst, keeping to the original transition date would mean people would be buying new TVs like crazy (not a bad thing in a sluggish economy) or paying $59 to get a converter box, as opposed to $19.

And why should the US taxpayer be picking up the tab for the additional coupons anyway? It's time to stop rewarding foolishness and laziness! The fund didn't run out of money until the last month. Had it been sooner then I wouldn't be as harsh about it.

But I wonder. Even if the deadline is extended, isn't that just the mandatory switch? So couldn't a station choose to make the switch anyway?? Some of my local stations are already decreasing power to the analog and boosting the digital signal. 

But exactly who are these Johnny Come Latelys anyway? The truly needy, I suspect, did not wait until the last minute or else they didn't have the $19 plus the cost of an antenna. So if they didn't already have the money why would they suddenly have it now?

I think most of the consumers wanting an extension of the coupon program as people who already subscribe to cable or DBS and want the box "just in case" and just want the $40 discount. Probably made it a low priority because they already have service. JMO.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

It isn't "the last month" -- it's not even the _first_ month. Demand for CECBs really begins when the analog signals go. The coupons need to be available for several months after the transition date, at least.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

restart88 said:


> And why should the US taxpayer be picking up the tab for the additional coupons anyway?


The US taxpayer should be paying for coupons(*) because this is a FORCED upgrade which is obsoleting otherwise completely functioning equipment.

(*) At the VERY least for people who ONLY get OTA and don't already have HD tuners. I know the current requirements aren't that way, and I have expired coupons that I will re-apply for when I am able to. BTW, I say this as a person who thinks MANY other things should be gotten rid of to save tax money (Social Security(**), and a whole bunch of other things).

(**) We have 401ks, IRAs, etc...


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

mattack said:


> The US taxpayer should be paying for coupons(*) because this is a FORCED upgrade which is obsoleting otherwise completely functioning equipment.


Sure, just like the Government gave me money when I had to replace my car that ran on leaded gasoline.

Oh wait, they didn't.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

mattack said:


> The US taxpayer should be paying for coupons(*) because this is a FORCED upgrade which is obsoleting otherwise completely functioning equipment.


You're aware that they pocketed BILLIONS Of dollars by auctioning off the unused frequencies, right?


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

Adam1115 said:


> You're aware that they pocketed BILLIONS Of dollars by auctioning off the unused frequencies, right?


Except for the $1.5 billion that they gave back thru the converter coupon program.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

JYoung said:


> Sure, just like the Government gave me money when I had to replace my car that ran on leaded gasoline.
> 
> Oh wait, they didn't.


You can still buy a lead substitute additive in many auto parts stores. You didn't have to replace your car.

JMO Nothing wrong with using some of the $$$ from the auction to subsidize the costs of converter boxes.


----------



## chsscgas (Oct 27, 2003)

Why not go ahead with the switchover in February and switch from a coupon program to a rebate program? This allows people to go ahead and buy the converter boxes. Plus a lot of people probably will not go to the trouble to apply for a rebate. The downside is some incremental costs associated with sending out checks to individuals instead of reimbursing retailers.

Edit: After thinking this through I think it would actually save money. With the coupon program, the government has to process the coupon application, mail the coupons, and then process the coupons when they are used to buy the box. With the rebate program you cut out the second step of reimbursing the retailer.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

rainwater said:


> Yes, the local PBS in my area is doing this because they can't afford running but analog and digital any longer. I suspect with the economy you may see a lot more than expected go ahead and switch. So if this passes, it seems it is just going to cause more confusion than if they switched everything at once.


Mine too (WTVS), is in a similar positions, except their analog transmitter is on its last legs, so it may go soon, and when it quits, that is it for analog, trasnition or not. There digital transmitter is up and working though.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

lew said:


> You can still buy a lead substitute additive in many auto parts stores. You didn't have to replace your car.


You mean like having to buy a converter box?


----------



## DAccardi (Oct 26, 2008)

JYoung said:


> You mean like having to buy a converter box?


Exactly, now don't you feel foolish for buying a new car when all you needed was an add-on? lol, just messin with ya.


----------



## SCSIRAID (Feb 2, 2003)

The house bill to delay the transition was defeated...... The switch is ON.

http://www.fox11online.com/dpp/news/nat_ap_washington_dtv_delay_vote_200901281211_rev1

http://www.wral.com/


----------



## Whittaker (Oct 11, 2004)

It's not just some households that are not ready. I have two stations that got waivers from the FCC to wait until Summer to completely do the switch.


----------



## Einselen (Apr 25, 2006)

So all this did was add more confusion as now people don't know when to be ready.


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

And now, the House failed to approve the delay today.

That means that the delay may be delayed.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/01/28/technology/AP-Digital-TV-Transition.html?_r=1&hp


----------



## timckelley (Oct 15, 2002)

Yay! :up:


----------



## tewcewl (Dec 18, 2004)

Good.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

WTF? Why would it require 2/3 passage?


----------



## timckelley (Oct 15, 2002)

wmcbrine said:


> WTF? Why would it require 2/3 passage?


Maybe (just guessing) the original deadline is already law, and to pass a new law changing that requires the ability to overcome a filibuster.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

wmcbrine said:


> WTF? Why would it require 2/3 passage?


They tried to do it by "suspending the rules" - I assume that means they wanted it done without going through the two hours of debate. Based on the vote, there appear to be enough votes already to pass it.

It could also be some political maneuver involving the stimulus package bill, since that appears to be ahead of the DTV bill on the House calendar.

-- Don


----------



## lofar (Mar 21, 2008)

I sure hope they don't try it again. They are probably just confusing people more with all this BS..

It's on, it's off, it's on, it's off, it's on, it's off...


----------



## unclemoosh (Sep 11, 2004)

Didn't get the 2/3 vote in the House. So, no postponement.


----------



## kb7sei (Oct 4, 2001)

unclemoosh said:


> Didn't get the 2/3 vote in the House. So, no postponement.


It probably just got moved to committee and will resurface later. Hopefully the delay will be long enough that they can't push it through. We need to just get it done already. If they feel they must provide more converter box coupons, fine. I think that if people didn't figure it out by now with all the commercials, crawls, announcements during the news broadcasts, etc. they probably aren't going to in another few months. So the delay really doesn't help those that aren't prepared.


----------



## timckelley (Oct 15, 2002)

If they aren't prepared, I say let 'em see snow. They'll figure something's going on.


----------



## sathead (Jan 12, 2008)

timckelley said:


> If they aren't prepared, I say let 'em see snow. They'll figure something's going on.


Agreed!
If you can't motivate you lazy a$$ in four years to either switch to cable or satellite or spend $10 to get a D to A converter box for your TV.... then no additional delay is going to help. 
You'll get what you deserve in Feb 2009.


----------



## DAccardi (Oct 26, 2008)

I dont know oner single person, not one, who uses an antenna anyway, they all have at least basic cable. When I think about it, at least in my neck of the woods, this is a non issue. If you have a cable coming into your house and plugging into to your tv or TiVo, your fine, right?


----------



## restart88 (Mar 9, 2002)

JYoung said:


> Sure, just like the Government gave me money when I had to replace my car that ran on leaded gasoline.
> 
> Oh wait, they didn't.


There's actually talk of a rebate of up to $5,000 to replace gas hogs however. No word on where I'm supposed to get the other $20k from though. 

The D/A converters should be paid for by the money from selling of the freed frequencies, not the taxpayer directly


----------



## restart88 (Mar 9, 2002)

JYoung said:


> Originally Posted by lew
> You can still buy a lead substitute additive in many auto parts stores. You didn't have to replace your car.
> 
> You mean like having to buy a converter box?


But playing devil's advocate it looks like my old 1963 Zenith with the vacuum tubes will now just be a pile of scrap metal & glass. I can't find the RCA plugins anywhere on it!


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

jrm01 said:


> Except for the $1.5 billion that they gave back thru the converter coupon program.


So they underfunded it and now it's part of the stimulus package.


----------



## restart88 (Mar 9, 2002)

timckelley said:


> Maybe (just guessing) the original deadline is already law, and to pass a new law changing that requires the ability to overcome a filibuster.


FYI the House doesn't have a filibuster. And with the Dems in control I'm not certain if the Senate_ really_ will have one anymore. God help us! 

I'm thinking you are generally correct because it's no small thing to keep postponing the date.


----------



## Whittaker (Oct 11, 2004)

timckelley said:


> Maybe (just guessing) the original deadline is already law, and to pass a new law changing that requires the ability to overcome a filibuster.


Filibusters are in the Senate. It already passed the Senate.

Don is likely correct, that they tried to do a quickie in the House by suspending the rules, now they will have to bring it up through the regular process. They do have the votes.


----------



## timckelley (Oct 15, 2002)

Government was never my good subject in school.


----------



## timckelley (Oct 15, 2002)

Whittaker said:


> now they will have to bring it up through the regular process. They do have the votes.


But do they have the time? (I hope not.)


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

restart88 said:


> But playing devil's advocate it looks like my old 1963 Zenith with the vacuum tubes will now just be a pile of scrap metal & glass. I can't find the RCA plugins anywhere on it!


You don't need them. The converter box will plug in with a coax cable.

This is the type of confusion that has helped to provide the 6.5 million unconverted.


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

Adam1115 said:


> So they underfunded it and now it's part of the stimulus package.


Not underfunded. There were 37.5 million coupons truly needed and they have issued 41 million. Just stupid accounting rules that won't allow new ones to be issued until others expire (which they eventuall will).


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

jrm01 said:


> You don't need them. The converter box will plug in with a coax cable.


A 1963 set probably doesn't even have coax input. You'd need something like this:


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

jrm01 said:


> Not underfunded. There were 37.5 million coupons truly needed and they have issued 41 million. Just stupid accounting rules that won't allow new ones to be issued until others expire (which they eventuall will).


End result= Tax Payer money going into the program.


----------



## EvilRift (Jan 28, 2009)

Most people wouldn't be able to use that adapter these days as it requires a screwdriver to hook it up.  

Thanks to the house for actually voting correct. :up:


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

Adam1115 said:


> End result= Tax Payer money going into the program.


Taxpayer money only goes into the program when the coupon is redeemed, not when it is issued.

Although many people ordered a coupon even though they didn't need it, I can't see very many actually redeeming it (except those e-bayers).


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

restart88 said:


> But playing devil's advocate it looks like my old 1963 Zenith with the vacuum tubes will now just be a pile of scrap metal & glass. I can't find the RCA plugins anywhere on it!


I'd be more concerned about getting replacement vacuum tubes.


----------



## donnoh (Mar 7, 2008)

jrm01 said:


> This is the type of confusion that has helped to provide the 6.5 million unconverted.


So out of 300 million there are only 6.5 million too dumb to figure out their analog TV won't work up anymore after Feb 19.

This gives me hope, I thought as a nation we had a lot larger percentage that are completely brain dead than that.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

donnoh said:


> So out of 300 million there are only 6.5 million too dumb to figure out their analog TV won't work up anymore after Feb 19.
> 
> This gives me hope, I thought as a nation we had a lot larger percentage that are completely brain dead than that.


Only 60 million people rely on OTA, so that 6.5 million is a larger percentage than it appears.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

donnoh said:


> So out of 300 million there are only 6.5 million too dumb to figure out their analog TV won't work up anymore after Feb 19.
> 
> This gives me hope, I thought as a nation we had a lot larger percentage that are completely brain dead than that.





hefe said:


> Only 60 million people rely on OTA, so that 6.5 million is a larger percentage than it appears.


Actually, that's 6.5 million _households_ (although I've seen figures ranging from 5 million to 7 million household).

I've seen the figure clocked in at 20 million people affected by this.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

Satellite users who are two cheap to pay for local channels use antennas. I am trying to help a friend find a converter box. She has not been able to watch 2-13 for years due to a local repeater going Digital early. 

I have cable (two cable cards for my HD Tivo and a nice little cable converter box for my Tivo Series 2).


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

sieglinde said:


> Satellite users who are two cheap to pay for local channels use antennas.


Too cheap? That's quite a judgment. Why pay for something that you don't have to, especially when the quality is better? I don't toss a dollar bill in the trash every day either, but it's not because I'm cheap.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

JYoung said:


> Sure, just like the Government gave me money when I had to replace my car that ran on leaded gasoline.


When did you HAVE to replace your car? I thought at the very least you could still buy additive for cars like that (at your own expense).

Plus, getting rid of leaded gasoline was a health concern.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

JYoung said:


> I'd be more concerned about getting replacement vacuum tubes.


Visit any ham radio flea market (hamfest). There are literally tons of them.

I have a couple boxes full of new (NOS) tubes in my basement as well.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

mattack said:


> When did you HAVE to replace your car? I thought at the very least you could still buy additive for cars like that (at your own expense).
> 
> Plus, getting rid of leaded gasoline was a health concern.


Or just ran it on unleaded....


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

The initial estimate when this program began was that there were 17% of the 110 million households (18.7 million) who had 38 million analog TVs using OTA reception.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Adam1115 said:


> Or just ran it on unleaded....


At reduced performance and higher expense.


----------



## timckelley (Oct 15, 2002)

Even if there's time for them to still get this bill through the conventional way and take another vote where all they need is a simple majority, it doesn't seem fair to the stations to only give them a week's notice or something that they still need to transmit analog signals.

The plan has been in place for a long time now, and schedules have been made and counted on, and to pull the rug out from under them at the last minute doesn't seem fair.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

timckelley said:


> Even if there's time for them to still get this bill through the conventional way and take another vote where all they need is a simple majority, it doesn't seem fair to the stations to only give them a week's notice or something that they still need to transmit analog signals.


The plan (as I've read it) does not require them to keep their analog signals up, it allows them to. They may cutover if they wish.


----------



## Einselen (Apr 25, 2006)

hefe said:


> The plan (as I've read it) does not require them to keep their analog signals up, it allows them to. They may cutover if they wish.


So the bill can pass then all the stations go screw you and switch anyway so the only thing about the delay means that come Feb 17th it won't be switched over but could be where as of now this post Feb 17th is the for sure date. Yeah that won't confuse the already confused more.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

newskilz said:


> I see your point. However, if the person is already using OTA, then the switch to digital will change nothing unless they are on the fringes of reception. Because there is no real difference needed for the antenna itself to pick up either analog or digital since they both are using the same wavelengths, albeit removing the VHF frequencies.


In most cases, yes, in some others, no.

There are places where the antenna system for the new station is physically located in a different place than the analog transmitters. There are areas where coverage will change, and some people will lose coverage or receive less signal, and others will get an improvement.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

Einselen said:


> So the bill can pass then all the stations go screw you and switch anyway so the only thing about the delay means that come Feb 17th it won't be switched over but could be where as of now this post Feb 17th is the for sure date. Yeah that won't confuse the already confused more.


People who are already confused are probably blissfully unaware of the details we are discussing here.

And really, I'm not sure what is confusing. At some point, channels will disappear. Anybody who doesn't know what is going on will probably be seeing a message on the channel via the "nightlight" service that should tell a person what happened and what to do. Seems simple. For people that are confused by that, there's nothing we can do anyway.


----------



## Einselen (Apr 25, 2006)

hefe said:


> People who are already confused are probably blissfully unaware of the details we are discussing here.


I am fairly sure most news networks have picked up the whole delay not delay conversation so I think the confused do know what is going on (or not really going on)


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

Einselen said:


> I am fairly sure most news networks have picked up the whole delay not delay conversation so I think the confused do know what is going on (or not really going on)


They're confused either way, so it doesn't really matter when it happens to them.


----------



## Einselen (Apr 25, 2006)

hefe said:


> They're confused either way, so it doesn't really matter when it happens to them.


I agree, unfortunately congress thinks differently so we have to have this conversation.


----------



## DAccardi (Oct 26, 2008)

wait what? I don't get it.


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

hefe said:


> They're confused either way, so it doesn't really matter when it happens to them.


I work part time selling TVs. On Monday night our local channels ran one of those digital-only tests during the 11 p.m. News. They told everyone that if you see a warning message, then you are not ready for the transition.

I had three people come into the store saying that they saw the warning message but should not have since they had bought new digital TVs (HDTV) to solve the problem. In each case I found out they were still watching the analog channels even though they had HDTVs and the HD channels were available.

Yes, some people are confused.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

jrm01 said:


> I work part time selling TVs. On Monday night our local channels ran one of those digital-only tests during the 11 p.m. News. They told everyone that if you see a warning message, then you are not ready for the transition.
> 
> I had three people come into the store saying that they saw the warning message but should not have since they had bought new digital TVs (HDTV) to solve the problem. In each case I found out they were still watching the analog channels even though they had HDTVs and the HD channels were available.
> 
> Yes, some people are confused.


Heh.
I'm going to go help my parents buy a new TV and get ready for the digital transition on Saturday.
This should be fun.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)




----------



## restart88 (Mar 9, 2002)

I have an HDTV set in the living room but since I have analog Tivos I rarely bother watch in HD. Can't live without pause and can't afford a newer Tivo, especially when it doesn't integrate with my DBS.

Previously I had my antenna setup as a powered DBS clip on antenna coupled with a small powered antenna combined by a splitter. It worked pretty well. I was able to get a good signal on almost all my local digital channels. At Christmas I took the small antenna to mom's so she would have a backup to DBS and I had recently added local cable. As it turned out, it's been so cold that the DBS lost it's signal a few days so it was a good move already. I never thought about sub zero temps being an issue but it seems the only explanation.

Many of my local broadcasters have run on screen messages that they have decreased the analog signal and boosted their digital signal so one day I decided to see if the signal strength increased. Oddly enough they actually DECREASED! 

I'm thinking some trees that had been partially blocking some of the channels had probably grown or something to further block the signals. I'm now down to 2 or 3 good channels and 2 with so, so reception. So glad I had cable installed! LOL

So I guess we are prepared for the switch. I still cannot understand why everyone else isn't already.


----------



## tgrim1 (Sep 11, 2006)

Personally I hope my locals do the switch right away. As of now my abc has the digital transmissions underpowered and even though I'm only 6 miles from the tower, they still drop out more than they work. According to TVFool, after the switch all will be powered up


----------



## Whittaker (Oct 11, 2004)

ROUND TWO

*Senate Approves Bill To Delay Digital TV*

(Reuters) - The U.S. Senate *unanimously* passed another bill on Thursday to delay the national transition to digital television. Efforts to move the transition date to June 12 from February 17 are fueled by worries an estimated 20 million mostly poor, elderly and rural households are not technically ready for the congressionally mandated switch. President Barack Obama supports a delay in the switch.

Earlier this week, the Senate passed another bill delaying the DTV transition, but the measure failed in the House of Representatives. The bill is essentially the same that previously passed the Senate, but with a few minor modifications from the House.


----------



## timckelley (Oct 15, 2002)

So I assume this would still need to pass the House too?


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

Whittaker said:


> ROUND TWO
> 
> *Senate Approves Bill To Delay Digital TV*
> 
> ...


What kind of hogwash is this. There were only 18.5 million people affected by original estimates, now they say that 20 million are unprepared. There must have been quite a few people who ran out and bought analog sets and hooked them up to an antenna in the last nine months.


----------



## Whittaker (Oct 11, 2004)

timckelley said:


> So I assume this would still need to pass the House too?


Indeed.

But as the article stated, the Senate made some modifications that the House had requested.


----------



## Whittaker (Oct 11, 2004)

jrm01 said:


> What kind of hogwash is this. There were only 18.5 million people affected by original estimates, now they say that 20 million are unprepared. There must have been quite a few people who ran out and bought analog sets and hooked them up to an antenna in the last nine months.


Originally, the estimate was that about 20% of the total 110 million households were receiving OTA, which would be about 22 million households that required conversion, but that is assumed to now be down to about 7 million households , which is about 20 million people.

The Reuters writer obviously meant to write 20 million people, not "20 million ... households".


----------



## justapixel (Sep 27, 2001)

Will the world end if people still living in caves see snow? Is analog TV a vital function that the government should preserve, and cost private companies millions in the process?

I know exactly one person who has analog TV and will need a converter, and she hasn't gotten one. And, you know why? She doesn't care about TV. It doesn't matter to her. When/if it does matter, she'll figure it out. Maybe when she can't turn on PBS she'll decide to get a converter or upgrade. 

Those who watch TV but are too stupid to have paid attention to the zillion reminders and nags and PSAs will figure it out when they see snow. They'll get up, turn on the TV, see nothing, pick their nose then use their rotary dial princess phone to call the TV stations, where they'll be told what to do, and then either do it or not. 

But, they won't die. Why is the government deciding this is critical enough to delay?

Bottom line. I want live TV on my cell phone. Open up those airwaves!


----------



## wannaB (Sep 19, 2005)

Another great example of our government at work. 

You know, America is the greatest country in the world (imho) but politicians well they are a JOKE.


----------



## pogopossum (Nov 12, 2005)

i can just feel the love here. i am one of those that ya'll are just lovin' to put down so cavilierly. there are many reasons not to have gotten the coupons until a late date. number one being the expiration date, if this is a make good for doing something that is not totally necessary, then there should be no expiration to the give back. 

as one who works in the broadcast and a/v production field, i know a lot more about this than the average tv viewer, and have waited for this long (other than buying two hdtvs), because of the expiration and wanting to let converter boxes get kinks worked out. my parents have already had two boxes crap out on them, so don't tell me the early ones were not inferior.
my other reason for delaying my purchase was waited for tivo to finaslly get their act together last fall and decide what was compatible with series two.

maybe i'm a little overly cautious, but i just don't like doing things twice.


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

pogopossum said:


> i can just feel the love here. i am one of those that ya'll are just lovin' to put down so cavilierly. there are many reasons not to have gotten the coupons until a late date. number one being the expiration date, if this is a make good for doing something that is not totally necessary, then there should be no expiration to the give back.
> 
> as one who works in the broadcast and a/v production field, i know a lot more about this than the average tv viewer, and have waited for this long (other than buying two hdtvs), because of the expiration and wanting to let converter boxes get kinks worked out. my parents have already had two boxes crap out on them, so don't tell me the early ones were not inferior.
> my other reason for delaying my purchase was waited for tivo to finaslly get their act together last fall and decide what was compatible with series two.
> ...


There is abolutely nothing wrong with an attitude or actions such as yours. The only thing that would be wrong if you were to expect the government to delay the switch-over because of what you have chosen to do.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

justapixel said:


> Will the world end if people still living in caves see snow?


Is that the standard -- they shouldn't do anything unless the world is going to end otherwise?



> _Is analog TV a vital function that the government should preserve, and cost private companies millions in the process?_


Hmm... I'm gonna go with "Yes, definitely."



> _I know exactly one person who has analog TV and will need a converter, and she hasn't gotten one._


Doubtless that's representative of the entire country, then.



> _Bottom line. I want live TV on my cell phone. Open up those airwaves!_


I'm pretty sure the one has nothing to do with the other. Some carriers are already offering TV on their cell phones, though it seems ridiculous to me. (Now, video phone calls, that would be useful.) Of course they could just stick an ATSC receiver into a phone.


----------



## restart88 (Mar 9, 2002)

For the sake of argument let's say that at least by Oct 1 all objections to wait to purchase were remedied. That means from October, November, to January gave you 90 days to get to the store and buy a box. Even if you waited until Oct 1 to apply for the coupons and even if it took 2 months to receive them you still had well over 30 days to get to the store.

If you waited until Jan 2009 to apply for your coupon you were probably SOL. But as I said before, if these people had applied for it sooner and the fund depleted then I might have mote sympathy. But nobody should have waited until mid January and had a realistic expectation that the coupon would arrive in time and I suspect that most of those wanting them now are probably just wanting it to supplement a cable or DBS subscription.

I swear the way things are going in Washington anymore I'm surprised they don't hold a press conference and say we have good news and we have bad news. The bad news is the converter coupon fund is depleted. The good news is we will pass a new coupon program to give everyone still eligible under the old program a new LCD TV.


----------



## wedenton (Jun 13, 2002)

I have a RIGHT to a new LCD TV!!!!!


----------



## restart88 (Mar 9, 2002)

wedenton said:


> I have a RIGHT to a new LCD TV!!!!!


A sense of entitlement I see.


----------



## herfmonster (Jul 12, 2006)

So... how many earmarks did the house want to add to the senate bill? Especially earmarks that have nothing to do with TV reception?


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

restart88 said:


> For the sake of argument let's say that at least by Oct 1 all objections to wait to purchase were remedied.


I don't get how that's "for the sake of argument". It isn't true, therefore the rest doesn't follow.



> _... and I suspect that most of those wanting them now are probably just wanting it to supplement a cable or DBS subscription._


And do you have any basis whatsoever for that, besides a gut feeling?


----------



## timckelley (Oct 15, 2002)

Out of curiosity, I visited the coupon site, and it does ask if you already have cable. Maybe the government is okay with people supplementing their cable with OTA using the coupons.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

justapixel said:


> Will the world end if people still living in caves see snow?


The problem is, if it did, almost 20 million people would have no clue. Local channels broadcast local (and national) emergencies and warnings.

So, in an ironic twist, the main purpose for the delay and the main reason NOT to delay are the same.


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

BobCamp1 said:


> The problem is, if it did, almost 20 million people would have no clue.


Wow, you mean this transition is going to make their radios inoperable also?


----------



## SMWinnie (Aug 17, 2002)

timckelley said:


> Out of curiosity, I visited the coupon site, and it does ask if you already have cable. Maybe the government is okay with people supplementing their cable with OTA using the coupons.


The coupon program was structured with a "non-contingent" first wave of about 22 million coupons for anyone who asked. If that ran out, there was supposed to be a contingent batch of coupons just for people without cable or satellite.

I have no idea what the bill banging around Congress right now does to that.

For what it's worth, I wouldn't qualify for the contingent program. I bought two Zenith 901s with coupons and left them on my shelf to install for family members that would qualify but wouldn't understand the need until February 17thJune 12th. Both are now spoken for...


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

jrm01 said:


> Wow, you mean this transition is going to make their radios inoperable also?


People watch way more TV than they listen to the radio. If a sudden emergency occurs, and a government needs to get a hold of its citizens ASAP, they'll use both mediums. But I'm betting they'll get many more people's attention with the TV.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

pogopossum said:


> maybe i'm a little overly cautious, but i just don't like doing things twice.


then you should have bought a TiVo HD to go with those HDTVs instead of fiddling around with converter boxes


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

BobCamp1 said:


> People watch way more TV than they listen to the radio. If a sudden emergency occurs, and a government needs to get a hold of its citizens ASAP, they'll use both mediums. But I'm betting they'll get many more people's attention with the TV.


Not if their TV isn't functioning. Then they'll use much more radio.


----------



## DAccardi (Oct 26, 2008)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29003127/

It is now set in stone. June 12.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

What a crock. It will change nothing. The people that aren't ready now won't be then.


----------



## timckelley (Oct 15, 2002)

Thanks, Obama!


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

Even if the people aren't "more ready" in June the weather is more conducive to getting on a roof and re-orienting an antenna.


----------



## timckelley (Oct 15, 2002)

lew said:


> Even if the people aren't "more ready" in June the weather is more conducive to getting on a roof and re-orienting an antenna.


They said that the millions that aren't ready live in the southern valley of Texas, El Paso, New Mexico, and southern California. I think the weather's better now for getting on a roof than it will be in June.


----------



## fred2 (Jan 20, 2006)

Hey, did they slip in a METRIC conversion section of the new bill? That struggle has been going on much longer.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

lew said:


> Even if the people aren't "more ready" in June the weather is more conducive to getting on a roof and re-orienting an antenna.


It will be a little late since a lot of stations are already making the switch on Feb 17. Because of the late delay, most stations have already made plans and can't afford to lose any more money.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

Lots of stations are going to cutover anyway. Maybe more will join the parade.


----------



## ciper (Nov 4, 2004)

Sigh... 

It's like taking off a bandaid. Either you pull it off slow and it hurts the entire time or you rip it all off at once and get it over with. Seems to me that Obama is doing many things to gain peoples trust/support (which isn't necessarily bad) while not considering it's long term effect.


----------



## jpicard (Oct 26, 2004)

The stations in Utah are still switching their broadcast signal on Feb 17. Only the two smaller PBS stations are delaying until June.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

I hope WNET transitions on 02/17 because their digital signal is low powered and on a high channel.

I was so looking forward to getting WNET-DT OTA.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

As written, the bill allows broadcasters to shut down their analog at any point after 17 February, just not mandating it until 12 June. It should be interesting to see how many stations around the nation choose to delay and how long the choose to delay for. San Diego broadcasters got together last Thursday and decided to all go ahead and transition as scheduled on the 17th (see this).


----------



## TheGreenHornet (Nov 1, 2007)

Raj said:


> I hope WNET transitions on 02/17 because their digital signal is low powered and on a high channel.
> 
> It is the same issue in Philly with WHYY (PBS) and probably around the country. It is the only digital channel I can not receive with Tivo's sensitive tuners and indoor antenna. WHYY broadcasts on VHF 12.
> 
> ...


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

If you want to track the status of what particular stations in your area are doing, check out the Local HDTV threads over at AVS Forum.


----------



## SMWinnie (Aug 17, 2002)

mikeyts said:


> As written, the bill allows broadcasters to shut down their analog at any point after 17 February, just not mandating it until 12 June. It should be interesting to see how many stations around the nation choose to delay and how long the choose to delay for. San Diego broadcasters got together last Thursday and decided to all go ahead and transition as scheduled on the 17th (see this).


Broadcasters can shut their analog signal down today, and some have. (Our local PBS affiliate turned off the NTSC signal on January 13th.) Also, has the FCC clarified how their 30-day notice provision interacts with the new "hard" date?

One thing a station *cannot* do today is switch to its post-transition frequency if there's a conflict with an analog broadcaster that was to have vacated on 2/17. The delay is not a pure option for broadcasters that were ready for the cutover.


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

As far as the ability to shut down analog today; That is an option only if an exception is filed with the FCC and approved due to hardships. 80 of the 1700 stations have done so. Beginning Feb 17, no application is required, it is an option for everyone (who doesn't need a freed up frequency.

As I reported over on the dupe thread in the S3 Forum:



> Well, here in Pittsburgh the scorecard is as follows:
> 
> Will wait until June 12: ABC, CBS, NBC
> Will switch on Feb 17: FOX, PBS, MyNetwork
> ...


----------



## timckelley (Oct 15, 2002)

During this confusing transition period where we have a mixture of analog and digital stations, will digital TVs be able to pick up both?


----------



## pilotbob (Nov 8, 2007)

timckelley said:


> During this confusing transition period where we have a mixture of analog and digital stations, will digital TVs be able to pick up both?


They should. I don't think there were any digital TVs sold that didn't have an analog tuner in them. But, I could be wrong.

BOb


----------



## timckelley (Oct 15, 2002)

Going into the future, you'd think the analog tuners will be a waste.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

timckelley said:


> During this confusing transition period where we have a mixture of analog and digital stations, will digital TVs be able to pick up both?


I believe that digital televisions all have NTSC tuners built in as well. I could be wrong, but I believe that's the case.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

timckelley said:


> Going into the future, you'd think the analog tuners will be a waste.


Yes, but a cheap waste. I doubt it adds much if any coast to include that in the tuning chip or however the hardware is implemented these days.

I've got a USB stick tuner like this:










that contains an NTSC tuner, an ATSC tuner AND a clear QAM tuner.

At this point, NTSC must be like 1% of the cost, to pull a number out of my posterior.


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

timckelley said:


> During this confusing transition period where we have a mixture of analog and digital stations, will digital TVs be able to pick up both?


yes


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

timckelley said:


> During this confusing transition period where we have a mixture of analog and digital stations, will digital TVs be able to pick up both?


The answer is 'maybe'.

Some stations are running low power and certain people won't be able to receive them until they 'flash cut' to their final frequency.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

jrm01 said:


> As far as the ability to shut down analog today; That is an option only if an exception is filed with the FCC and approved due to hardships. 80 of the 1700 stations have done so. Beginning Feb 17, no application is required, it is an option for everyone (who doesn't need a freed up frequency.


You're right--I recall hearing that a few stations had gone all digital years back, though I didn't realized that they needed an FCC exemption to do it. Some of the independents are too small to afford the cost of running both analog and digital transmitters, and they can use the "Must Carry" rule to get their signal on local cable systems in one form or the other if they're only broadcasting in digital. It was something I remember mentioned in the "Dual Must Carry" debates, in which the FCC decided that cable systems only have to carry one channel per broadcaster.


----------



## mathwhiz (May 28, 2000)

It'll be interesting to see how well TiVo handles all these changes to digital frequencies as they roll out haphazardly.


----------



## timckelley (Oct 15, 2002)

mathwhiz said:


> It'll be interesting to see how well TiVo handles all these changes to digital frequencies as they roll out haphazardly.


I wonder how that will work. I see people have already explained that digital TVs will be able to pick up analog channels. What about the converter boxes? Will they be able to tune to analog? I ask, because if you set your TiVo to use a converter box as it's signal source, then does that mean all your channels that TiVo detects will have to come through the converter box? If so, and if the converter box can't see analog, it sounds like Washington has sort of screwed some people over with this transition period.


----------



## gastrof (Oct 31, 2003)

timckelley said:


> I wonder how that will work. I see people have already explained that digital TVs will be able to pick up analog channels. What about the converter boxes? Will they be able to tune to analog? I ask, because if you set your TiVo to use a converter box as it's signal source, then does that mean all your channels that TiVo detects will have to come through the converter box? If so, and if the converter box can't see analog, it sounds like Washington has sort of screwed some people over with this transition period.


If I understand right, the digital converters are just that. They receive and "understand" digital TV broadcasts. They're not meant for receiving analog channels.

A good clue regarding this is that many of them have "analog passthru" which will allow your TV's older tuner to get any remaining analog channels, provided you put the box into "passthru" mode.

Wouldn't need the passthru feature if the converter box could tune the analog channels as well.


----------



## timckelley (Oct 15, 2002)

So this suggests to me that if you want your TiVo to pick up a mixture of digital and analog, the TiVo would need to be able to control this passthru mode. I bet it can't do that.

So I'm wondering if this latest snafu (i.e. phasing in the digital conversion over 4 months instead of doing it all in February) that Congress has dumped on us is going to be impairing TiVo users. I'm not speaking for myself, because I'm a Time Warner customer, but I understand some of you use OTA with your TiVo.

Maybe I'll eventually go OTA but if I do, this transition should be done with by then.

ETA: Oh I forgot: Don't the dual tuner models let you pick a box for one source and analog cable for the other? Maybe that would solve the problem. Still, the single tuner users might be SOL.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

A Series 2 can only be set up for analog antenna _or_ digital antenna convertor box. There is no method to receive hybrid analog/digital lineups for them, except for unsupported setups.

The HD models do support a hybrid analog/digital antenna lineup.


----------



## timckelley (Oct 15, 2002)

I guess another solution could be for people who have more than one TiVo in their house to split the duties between them.


----------



## gastrof (Oct 31, 2003)

To be blunt, if there are any channels that aren't already sending out a digital version of themselves, they're few and far between. 

Use your digital box and forget about the analog stations.

Of course, in those few cases where a channel's gotten a waiver of some kind and won't be switching to digital, THAT will be a problem.


----------



## SMWinnie (Aug 17, 2002)

Over at Ars Technica, there's an article describing how the new delay-enhanced rules might...or might not...work.

Caution: Those of you from Sigma Iotia II may be insulted by the author's description of the delay and rulemaking process.


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

Let the Leader of the Free World know what you think:



> The White House wants your opinion on The DTV Delay ACT Bill
> President Obama said he will not sign the DTV transaction act into law on Monday until he hears what the public has to say, you can comment here
> 
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing_room/dtv_delay_act/


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

jrm01 said:


> Let the Leader of the Free World know what you think:


What?

Considering what the public wants? Outrageous!


----------



## timckelley (Oct 15, 2002)

Question: originally (before the republicans killed the rushed delay bill) they wanted to not only delay the digital conversion, but pump in another almost $billion into it for more coupons for converters. (In addition to the amount already pumped in prior.)

Does anybody know if the version that actually passed still has this extra $ for converter coupons?


----------



## pilotbob (Nov 8, 2007)

jrm01 said:


> Let the Leader of the Free World know what you think:


I did so. But 500 characters is not alot.

BOb


----------



## ciper (Nov 4, 2004)

mathwhiz said:


> It'll be interesting to see how well TiVo handles all these changes to digital frequencies as they roll out haphazardly.


EXACTLY. By delaying the deadline they have essentially made the switchover happen at random dates and times for every market.


----------



## smith1190 (Dec 19, 2004)

I just spoke with a TiVo customer support person. (I always make this my LAST resort because there are so many posts about terrible experiences with customer service & this call certainly confirmed that negative experience.) Anyway, the TiVo rep said that once the digital switch happens, each DT I own (2) will only be able to record one channel at a time since it can record 1 analog & 1 digital. Does anyone know if this is correct? I thought Comcast in my area (Chicago) had already switched to all digital for its cable customers, and I'm still getting 2 channels on each DT. The rep was strongly encouraging me to buy a TiVo HD, though I don't have an HDTV or want to pay for a digital Comcast box, and he said I'd need to get CableCards for each TiVo HD I bought in order to receive any channels on a tuner, let alone both. I did start considering buying an HD for that reason, but as soon as I came on this forum, I saw tons of posts stating multiple problems with the HD and recommending people don't buy it. So now I'm quite confused and at a loss about how to proceed. Any info you can give me to clarify about whether S2 DTs will still work after all-digital switch, etc., would be immensely helpful! I don't want to have to talk to TiVo again if I can possibly help it. The rep was so rude and kept trying to get off the call, even though I still had questions. Finally, he just said he had to hang up & would transfer me somewhere else. After holding a while, I was so frustrated that I hung up. Over the years (I've been a TiVo user & huge fan since the original model), I've found you TiVo users to be a much more reliable and truthful source of information when I have questions. Thanks so much!


----------



## ciper (Nov 4, 2004)

smith1190 said:


> Anyway, the TiVo rep said that once the digital switch happens, each DT I own (2) will only be able to record one channel at a time since it can record 1 analog & 1 digital.


The rep is an idiot. http://tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=7052335#post7052335


----------



## SCSIRAID (Feb 2, 2003)

ciper said:


> The rep is an idiot. http://tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=7052335#post7052335


Never mind.... I reread his post... He is not clear whether his Comcast has gone all digital or even plans to go all digital. If they DO... then he has a problem.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

The digital "switch" this thread is about is the broadcast switch from analog to digital, specifically when broadcasters are supposed to turn off their analog transmitters. It is not supposed to affect cable subscribers. 

That said, many cable providers are turning off analog channels (they by now have all their channels digital, with some in analog also). I am rather sure Comcast is going to leave 2-29 analog for some time to come, so the dual tuners will work for those channels. RCN is the one going completely digital, rendering the Series 2 DT single tuner.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

hefe said:


> Lots of stations are going to cutover anyway. Maybe more will join the parade.


Apparently [citation needed] a bunch of stations that said they were going to switch over anyway wimped out after they got complaints. (I at least saw this as a headline on yahoo news.)


----------



## timckelley (Oct 15, 2002)

These TV stations need to get some more machismo.


----------



## pilotbob (Nov 8, 2007)

timckelley said:


> These TV stations need to get some more machismo.


MY understanding is that the decisions were made at the Network level. The basically told their affiliates to stick out the analog until June 12.

Although, I haven't heard that Obama signed this bill yet. Has he made it official?

BOb


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

Well, nobody's "wimping out" here in San Diego. In fact, the only station which planned to stay analog (XETV, the WB affiliate, broadcast out of Tijuana) just announced that they're going to go ahead and dump their analog broadcast on the 17th as well. (KPBS will keep their analog transmitter on until the end of their pledge drive).

So, if the national affiliates were told by their networks to "stick it out", they're ignoring them. Only the networks with O&O affiliates have any power to demand something like that. Here, only KNSD, the NBC affiliate is O&O and they're apparently still going to dump their analog on the 17th.

Anyone have more than anecdotal evidence of broadcasters who'd decided to go ahead with the 17th "wimping out"?

EDIT: I just discovered that the local NBC O&O is now keeping their analog transmission up until the new deadline, as well as KUSI (an independent). KPBS is going to keep their analog up until the end of their pledge drive in April. KFMB (CBS), KGTV (ABC), KSWB (Fox) and XETV (CW) will transition on the 17th. This information comes from the Engineering Director at XETV. Since the only national network O&O in this market is sticking it out, maybe there is something to the claim that the networks are supporting the delay. (I found an LA Times article which confirms it).


----------



## Einselen (Apr 25, 2006)

mikeyts said:


> Anyone have more than anecdotal evidence of broadcasters who'd decided to go ahead with the 17th "wimping out"?


I will let you know next Wednesday.


----------



## mathwhiz (May 28, 2000)

A group of volunteers over at AVSForums is putting together a list culled from FCC data about when stations are switching - you can check it out at http://www.rabbitears.info/dtr.php

Rich


----------



## QZ1 (Mar 24, 2003)

hefe said:


> Yes, but a cheap waste. I doubt it adds much if any coast to include that in the tuning chip or however the hardware is implemented these days.
> 
> I've got a USB stick tuner like this:
> 
> ...


Clear-QAM is a type of ATSC tuner.

NTSC tuners, for many years now, have been VHF/UHF and clear-CATV capable.

ATSC tuners, for several years now, have almost always been 8VSB and clear-QAM capable.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

QZ1 said:


> Clear-QAM is a type of ATSC tuner.


I meant 8VSB over the air type.



QZ1 said:


> ATSC tuners, for several years now, have almost always been 8VSB and clear-QAM capable.


Not this particular brand/type. You have to buy the model that does both.


----------



## kb7oeb (Jan 18, 2005)

timckelley said:


> Does anybody know if the version that actually passed still has this extra $ for converter coupons?


It does not, AFAIK the original version did but they did not have enough votes in the House for a super majority that allows bypassing budget rules. By stripping out anything that affects budget they were able to pass the new bill with a simple majority. The interesting thing to me is the Senate passed it unanimously both times.

The converter coupon money is supposed to be in the stimulus package that passed today.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

kb7oeb said:


> It does not, AFAIK the original version did but they did not have enough votes in the House for a super majority that allows bypassing budget rules. By stripping out anything that affects budget they were able to pass the new bill with a simple majority. The interesting thing to me is the Senate passed it unanimously both times.
> 
> The converter coupon money is supposed to be in the stimulus package that passed today.


And as far as the Senate passing it unanimously both times? It was pointed out BOTH times that a full vote was never taken on it in the Senate.


----------



## kb7oeb (Jan 18, 2005)

True but it only takes one Senator to stop unanimous consent.


----------



## QZ1 (Mar 24, 2003)

hefe said:


> I meant 8VSB over the air type.
> 
> Not this particular brand/type. You have to buy the model that does both.


I know, and there are ATSC-8VSB only TVs, as well, that is why I said 'almost always'.

My only point was that QAM and 8VSB are subsets of ATSC.

I know, _typically_, with TV and tuner manufacturers, ATSC-8VSB is called 'ATSC', and ATSC-QAM is called 'QAM'; they are really unparallel terms.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

I can't be certain, but I don't think that the ATSC standard includes the use of QAM. AFAIK, it's a primarily a standard for over-the-air transmission using 8-VSB (though it does have include a "high data rate" transmission mode using 16-VSB, not QAM, and the PSIP spec contains features for use in cable). The FCC specifies how cable carries digital television, and I don't think that any of the referenced specs are from the ATSC except PSIP. The primary specs for cable DTV transport are all maintained by the SCTE.

Do you know of any ATSC specifications which refer to QAM?


----------



## QZ1 (Mar 24, 2003)

Maybe so, I am not sure. My info. is from some 'experts' over at AVS Forum, that are typically right about techincal info., AFAICT.

Also, here is a link in this forum saying the same:

http://tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=6093263#post6093263

I would, however, like to read other confirmation that QAM, along with 8VSB, is indeed part of the ATSC spec.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

mikeyts said:


> I can't be certain, but I don't think that the ATSC standard includes the use of QAM. AFAIK, it's a primarily a standard for over-the-air transmission using 8-VSB (though it does have include a "high data rate" transmission mode using 16-VSB, not QAM, and the PSIP spec contains features for use in cable). The FCC specifies how cable carries digital television, and I don't think that any of the referenced specs are from the ATSC except PSIP. The primary specs for cable DTV transport are all maintained by the SCTE.
> 
> Do you know of any ATSC specifications which refer to QAM?


The ATSC (Advanced Television Systems Committee) has defined a whole set of standards.

However, if you read through the sections specifically about digital television, there is no mention of QAM. It is all about broadcast and 8VSB. Actually, I thought I was right before, and should have asserted so, but going back to double check now, no...QAM is not part of the ATSC standards. It is a separately developed cable standard. The ATSC defined the NTSC broadcast replacement, not cable.

The wiki on ATSC notes: "256 QAM is a cable standard, not an ATSC standard; however, over time it is expected to be included in the ATSC standard"

And elsewhere, I found independently, "The QAM standard was set by CableLabs, a cable industry funded research group, in 1994 and is used by most cable set-top boxes."


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

QZ1 said:


> Maybe so, I am not sure. My info. is from some 'experts' over at AVS Forum, that are typically right about techincal info., AFAICT.
> 
> Also, here is a link in this forum saying the same:
> 
> ...


There's a lot of improper mixing of terms in that discussion that you linked to. QAM stands for Quadrature Amplitude Modulation, a method for expressing a stream of digital data in an analog waveform; it's precisely analogous to 8-VSB (8 Vestigal Side Band), another method for expressing a stream of binary digits in an analog signal. Both methods have features for noise rejection and forward error correction, but 8-VSB is more robust, dedicating much more bandwidth to those concerns. It therefore offers half the payload of 256 QAM in the same amount of bandwidth, but is more appropriate for the much-more-noisy-than-broadband-cable environment of wireless transmission.

ATSC stands for Advanced Television Systems Committee and is also used to describe the stack of standards generated and maintained by that group, which are all principally concerned with transmission of digital television through the air. Those standards specify the use of 8-VSB for modulation. As I said before, they also describe a "high-speed data mode" using 16-VSB which wouldn't work well over the air--they don't describe an application for it; I think thatit was intended for use on cable, but AFAIK, no one uses it. (I recall that a few cable systems rebroadcast 8-VSB signals before cable came up with their own digital video carriage standard).

I've examined those standards through the years and I scanned them again to check after I responded to your post (you can see them online here), and the only one which mentions QAM is A/80, entitled "Modulation and Coding Requirements for Digital TV (DTV) Applications Over Satellite". That document suggests a scheme for rebroadcasting ATSC DTV signals over satellite, and specifies optional use of 16 QAM (not the 64 QAM and 256 QAM used in cable). The document is also under consideration for withdrawal, since the ATSC suspects that no one is using it . QAM is also mentioned in A/79 ("ATSC Recommended Practice: Conversion of ATSC Signals for Distribution to NTSC Viewers"), but only in the following note:


> This recommendation does not include processing of ATSC signals for delivery to SCTE 54 or SCTE 128 compliant receivers. It is noted that the SCTE Standards for delivery of digital transport streams using QAM signals, and the associated reception/decode for display via many combinations of equipment are well documented by the cable industry.


I'm pretty certain that transmission of digital television over cable is not in the purview of the ATSC and they never even wrote a "recommended practices" spec for it. Cable has its own set of standards, maintained by the Society of Cable Telecommunication Engineers (SCTE). Digital television broadcasts using the ATSC specs began in November of 1998--it was several years later before a set of standards for DTV-over-cable was concocted by a joint effort of the cable and consumer electronics industries, which at the time was referred to as "Plug-and-Play DTV Over Cable". Like the ATSC specs, this is a thick bunch of documents, which only borrows the PSIP specification from the ATSC (a system carrying channel and program information in MPEG transport streams).

There's no umbrella term for digital-television-over-cable as "ATSC" is for digital-television-over-the-air, so people just say "QAM tuner" when they're talking about clear digital cable tuners, and "CableCARD tuner" when they're talking about encrypted digital cable tuners.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

hefe said:


> And elsewhere, I found independently, "The QAM standard was set by CableLabs, a cable industry funded research group, in 1994 and is used by most cable set-top boxes."


It took me a while to compose that long reply to QZ1, and you beat me to post . One thing that I'd like to point out is that QAM, the modulation scheme, is much older than the cable industry's use of it, and I know that there has been data transmission over-the-air using QAM in the past (probably more like 8 QAM or something--256 and 64 QAM wouldn't survive). I think that it may be used in satellite transmissions.


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

The following was published on Wednesday on out local TV&Radio website:



> National News: Just when you thought that the transition to digital TV would finally take place by June 12th, you might want to sit down. According to sources in Washington, both leaders in the U.S. House and Senate are looking at ways to delay the DTV transition AGAIN until December 25th. Yes folks, December 25th is Christmas believe it or not. The legislation could also force all TV stations who have already converted to digital to convert back to analog until December 25 because as one house member said "TV station owners are just like kids, they just couldn't wait until Christmas to make the switch. So that's their problem to switch back, not ours." I mean come on, enough is enough as far as I'm concerned. Do we really need to extend the DTV transition ANY LONGER?!? Thanks to PBRTV reader Josh Kiddenya for this breaking news update.


Reported by: "Josh Kiddenya" on April 1st


----------



## timckelley (Oct 15, 2002)

How completely stupid.


----------



## unclemoosh (Sep 11, 2004)

timckelley said:


> How completely stupid.


You did see the date it was reported, didn't you?


----------



## timckelley (Oct 15, 2002)

oops!


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

unclemoosh said:


> You did the date it was reported, didn't you?


and the name of the reporter.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

jrm01 said:


> The following was published on Wednesday on out local TV&Radio website:
> 
> Reported by: "Josh Kiddenya" on April 1st


So why are you posting april fools jokes on april 3rd?


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

April Fool FAIL!


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

Adam1115 said:


> So why are you posting april fools jokes on april 3rd?


Sorry. I was not reporting it as an April Fool's joke, but as a report on an April Fool's joke. I thought that by highlighting the name (Kiddenya) and date that would be obvious.

Anyway, I was supposed to play golf today and it rained, so I had to find something else to do.


----------

