# Is obama going to delay the switch to Digital tv?



## tootal2 (Oct 14, 2005)

I heard that obama wants to delay the switch to digital tv because some people are not ready for digital tv. They still have a month to get ready.
I hope theres no delay


----------



## Deanq4 (Sep 30, 2005)

they are trying to change it to June 21st or so is what they said this morning on the news


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

What I don't get is that the stations appear not to be supporting a delay - can't they just switch over without the mandate? I thought some stations/markets have done that already, and not just Hawaii.


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

Already being discussed here.


----------



## tootal2 (Oct 14, 2005)

pdhenry said:


> What I don't get is that the stations appear not to be supporting a delay - can't they just switch over without the mandate? I thought some stations/markets have done that already, and not just Hawaii.


It cost alot of money to broadcast two 250,000 watts stations.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

I'll speculate they'll be a delay long enough to find funding for the converter program.

What about a compromise? Leave the 4 network stations in analog for an extra month or two but start moving the rest of the stations. Once people start losing stations they'll take the change over seriously.

I'd delay the networks until people have their vouchers, and there is availability of convertor boxes. Make the switch date two weeks after the last bunch of vouchers get mailed.

Economic circumstances may have caused some people to drop cable and/or delay purchasing a new TV set.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

lew said:


> What about a compromise? Leave the 4 network stations in analog for an extra month or two but start moving the rest of the stations. Once people start losing stations they'll take the change over seriously.


 Most people only get the 4 networks (at most) if they're not on cable, in which case it wouldn't matter.


----------



## Dancar (Oct 8, 2001)

A couple of thoughts:

This cutover has been heavily advertised for at least 6 months. No one has any excuse for not being ready.

I think I heard that the number of coupons already used exceeds the number of non-cable households with analog TVs out there. This means that a lot of people who have cable and/or digital TVs depleted the funding by buying converter boxes they didn't need. The information is out there - wise up people!!!

No one dies because they lose TV temporarily. The government doesn't subsidize anyone's first TV set, or help pay to replace a broken set. If you live in an area with no OTA reception, the government doesn't subsidize your cable or satillite service. Then why is the government obligated to subsidize converter boxes or delay the cutover because it can't afford to subsidize any more converters?


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

There may be a corollary to this problem. I hear that many people who ordered tickets to the Presidential Inauguration next week have not gotten them yet. Perhaps they should delay the inauguration for a month.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

Some people with cable have one or more sets that are set up OTA. Those people are eligible for a voucher but there was supposed to be a limited number of vouchers available to those taxpayers.

Few, if any, taxpayers asked to have their analog signals turned off. The government is doing this so they can auction off the unused spectrum. Nothing wrong with using some of these funds to subsidize boxes. Look at it this way, the government is taking our analog signals. Nothing wrong with compensating people with vouchers.



Dancar said:


> A couple of thoughts:
> 
> This cutover has been heavily advertised for at least 6 months. No one has any excuse for not being ready.
> 
> ...


----------



## jay0k (Nov 8, 2008)

Dancar said:


> A couple of thoughts:
> 
> This cutover has been heavily advertised for at least 6 months. No one has any excuse for not being ready.
> 
> ...


You're thinking too logically. Our government has expanded its reach far beyond the original intent. The masses are getting used to entitlements and bailouts. No personal accountability. It's a slippery slope and we're picking up speed.


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

tootal2 said:


> I heard that obama wants to delay the switch to digital tv because some people are not ready for digital tv. They still have a month to get ready.
> I hope theres no delay


I allready wrote my Senators and congressmen about that.... They assured me that they wouldn't be voting for the delay.

The thought we were to close now to delay. Only 33 days now.

Besides that, all the major local network stations are pushing to go through with it as well.

TGC

P.S. The other argument agains't the delay of the switchover is mass confusion on the consumer level as well.

Personally I don't think it will pass. None of the Texas Senators or House will be voting for it, & they did tell me it would require a vote of both the house & the senate for the delay.


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

TexasGrillChef said:


> Personally I don't think it will pass. None of the Texas Senators or House will be voting for it, & they did tell me it would require a vote of both the house & the senate for the delay.


I'll bet that Al Green will do whatever the pres-elect asks.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

pdhenry said:


> What I don't get is that the stations appear not to be supporting a delay - can't they just switch over without the mandate? I thought some stations/markets have done that already, and not just Hawaii.





tootal2 said:


> It cost alot of money to broadcast two 250,000 watts stations.


Exactly....they want to shut down their analog ops ASAP to save thousands of dollars in electricity costs. All the stations in our market oppose the delay.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

Most of us aren't affected. We have cable or satellite. Those who are OTA already have digital tuners. We're not affected.

It doesn't bother me if our *elected officials* believe more time is needed. The reason could be the lack of money in the voucher program or confusion by consumers. It also doesn't bother me if our elected officials decide not to extend the deadline. The issue doesn't affect me.

The question is how many taxpayers will lose their TV and will a delay help the transition.


----------



## angel35 (Nov 5, 2004)

Lets get it on now??


----------



## Mike500 (Jun 29, 2004)

Obama is doing what he does best...........the art of the politician.

If Congress and Obama were wise, the money coming back from the expired Coupons should be allocated to grants to community service organizations like Meals on Wheels, where the converter boxes can be delivered and installed for those senior citizens without other means can have the boxes provided to and installed to them at no costThe last 7&#37; who are not ready?

What brilliant politician thinks that, in this declining economy with steadily declining incomes and job losses, that the procrastinators will have more money to spend on the transition four to five months from now.

These are the same people who "prepared" for Katrina by letting the hurricane hit them in the face.

The same people complained when the government paid for their evacuation and saved them from letting another hurricane hit them in the face.


These so called deadbeats don't do anything 'til the stuff from the fan hits them in the face. 

They don't complain until the power, the phone or the water is cut off.

They will only take action when the TV is cut off.

So, cut it off and be done with it and move the country to solving more important problems....


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

Mike500 said:


> Obama is doing what he does best...........the art of the politician.
> 
> If Congress and Obama were wise, the money coming back from the expired Coupons should be allocated to grants to community service organizations like Meals on Wheels, where the converter boxes can be delivered and installed for those senior citizens without other means can have the boxes provided to and installed to them at no costThe last 7% who are not ready?
> 
> What brilliant politician thinks that, in this declining economy with steadily declining incomes and job losses, that the procrastinators will have more money to spend on the transition four to five months from now.


The money from the expiring voucher has already been allocated to providing vouchers to taxpayers on the waiting list. You must be a politician if you think you can spend the same money twice.

You answered your own question. Current economic suggests at least some people don't have the money to spend on the transition. Brilliant politicians want to find a way to fund the voucher program. Presumably that can get done in 4-5 months.

Your other point has some merit. There may be a need for volunteers to help elderly people install the converters.

Sorry but I don't see how a delay adversely affects any of us. I'll defer to our representatives to balance the cost to the broadcasters vs the number of taxpayers inconvenienced by loss of TV.


----------



## EvilMidniteBombr (May 25, 2006)

People have had, what, two years to get ready for this? What the hell difference will another month, 6 months, or a year make?

Get this over with when the February deadline gets here and be done with it. I am sick of seeing all of the PSA and crawlers on my favorite shows telling me about the upcoming conversion. I cannot wait for the switchover to get here.


----------



## tootal2 (Oct 14, 2005)

One station where i live is going digital only on Monday. Channel 24 in st. Louis mo. and the cbs is moving from channel 56 to 24. Will tivo have this info on monday?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

lew said:


> Most of us aren't affected. We have cable or satellite. Those who are OTA already have digital tuners. We're not affected.
> 
> It doesn't bother me if our *elected officials* believe more time is needed. The reason could be the lack of money in the voucher program or confusion by consumers. It also doesn't bother me if our elected officials decide not to extend the deadline. The issue doesn't affect me.
> 
> The question is how many taxpayers will lose their TV and will a delay help the transition.





lew said:


> ...
> Sorry but I don't see how a delay adversely affects any of us. I'll defer to our representatives to balance the cost to the broadcasters vs the number of taxpayers inconvenienced by loss of TV.


there are NO free rides in life. EVERY decision has a downside. just because "any of us" aren't hurt doesn't mean no one is hurt and there arent costs to society as a whole.

As you alluded-if you owned a tv station and had to pay double your electric bill each month to run 2 transmitters I think you'd care. If your 401k which already lost a huge chunk of it's value invests in stocks (or mutal funds with those stocks) then you probably should care that you will make less money on your investments.

If you are a PBS station and normally have barely enough money to survive and now cause the economy blows your donations are all but non existant, you probably would want to shut down your analog transmitter to save on that electric bill. If you like to watch PBS then maybe you should care.

If you are into the environment then maybe you should be concerned about the additional tons of CO2 released with from wasteful generation of energy for duplicative transmissions.

If you were a volunteer fireman and got called to a big house fire and needed to talk to the volunteer fireman from the next town to ask for help but couldn't because you didn't have interoperable radios and were waiting on the new frequencies to get assigned to buy new radios that would work with other departments then you would care. If your house was the one on fire and those 2 fire departments cant communicate well and coordinate their efforts to save the place you would really care.

If you were verizon or ATT(or the others) and plunked down the gross national product of mexico to buy that spectrum to build your 4G LTE networks and still have plans to deploy those networks at the end of 2009 or sometime in 2010 and then the government said "just wait another 6 months"- I think you would care. Again if your 401k has verizon or ATT stock you should care. If you are someone who might be interested in the services to be put on those 4g networks (wireless broadband alternative to cable?) then you might care.

If verizon, ATT, or the others who bought that spectrum care enough that they paid something like 20 billion dollars already and then wont get what they were promised when they were promises, then they will SUE and then you and I sure should care because our tax dollars need to either defend such suits or maybe give refunds.

So there are implications.

The question is what's more important- and that's open for debate from reasonable people. But you can't act like there is no down side because you personally dont pay the electric bills.

Myself- I think it's pretty easy- the idiot *elected officials* who underfunded the coupon program in the first place and then stood by when it became clear there wasnt going to be enough money- should vote immediately to increase the funds as much as is needed so any household that's OTA only and didn't get in yet can have the 2 coupons. Obama should sign that bill come Tuesday. Then the authority should start mailing coupons right away. The waiting list started on 1/5 so add the number of days from 1/5 till the day the law got signed on 1/20. Give the slackers those additional 15 days (make it 20 or 25 or 30 if the authority needs those extra days to get to where they would be mailing coupons had there been no waiting list). I dont see why anything needs to be added more than however many days the waiting list delayed things- that's the only thing here beyond people's control. If the slackers didn't call yet and will extend this to July 1 will they call before June 30th anyway? What happens then on June 1 when there are millions still who did nothing?

Probably need to all ATT and Verizon and those people make sure that doesn't interfere with their plans (cant see how it would but at least ask them- if they get antsy remind them the economy blows and they can add another 15 days to their LTE network launch and have no effect whatsoever). Give the commercial TV stations a tax credit for their electric bills they incur over that period as an incentive for them to leave the analog on (there's a trillion dollar stimulus bill - what's another few more hundred thousands or millions)- and then give the PBS stations donations in the stimulus bill to cover their bills too. If there is anyone else effected then make them square with the stimulus nill too.

It's not rocket science. I dont understand how the genius elected officials have sat buy since jan 5th and done NOTHING. But then again they are the same people that 12 years agao wanted to create a system where cable companys didnt control all the equipment and we see how thats gone. So thats sort of why I dont trust the morons to do anything right and would rather not defer to their judgment.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

lew said:


> ... Current economic suggests at least some people don't have the money to spend on the transition. ...


that and the lack of education are potential problems- for sure but they dont get addressed with simple extensions.

1- the economy is likley to suck much more in 6 months. If people can't afford the 10 extra bucks it costs between the 40 dollar coupon and the 50 dollar box then maybe the gov should increase the coupons. Maybe make it that if you get public assistance you can get a 50 dollar coupon.

2- the education is a MESS- I have an elderly relative in NYC who got a box- connected it as instructed and got nothing. Troublshooting from 50 miles away I think he had a problem with his antenna. The main channles in NYC currently are all VHF, but currently the digital are all UHF no one explained that the rabbit ears he used were not goingto help the box get UHF. And then to make it worse- if he had stumbled on a UHF only antenna that doesn't help any come the transition becasue some are going to stay UHF while others will move back to VHF. I wonder how many poor folks ignorant of that in NYC area have UHF now and will be completely confused after the switch that they miss the channels that moved to VHF.

It's what a month away in theory- there should be a 24/7 crawl on every OTA station explaining to go buy a box right now and then explaining the antenna delimma.


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> It's what a month away in theory- there should be a 24/7 crawl on every *analog *OTA station explaining to go buy a box right now and then explaining the antenna delimma.


FYP


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

MichaelK said:


> 1- the economy is likley to suck much more in 6 months. If people can't afford the 10 extra bucks it costs between the 40 dollar coupon and the 50 dollar box then maybe the gov should increase the coupons. Maybe make it that if you get public assistance you can get a 50 dollar coupon.


The voucher program is out of money. There is a waiting list (100,000?) for vouchers. One of the reasons for the delay is to add funding to the voucher program.


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

The voucher program is not out of money. It is just the stupid way that they are accounting for the funds. They reached their cap of voucher money based on the vouchers issued. There are still over ten million of them floating around somewhere. You know, I know and the government knows that some of them will expire worthless after 90 days (31&#37; already have). All they need to do is admit that at least 10% of them will also expire unused and issue one million more and clean up the backlog.


----------



## coachbob (Jan 1, 2009)

With the governments hand in this mess, I bet they have created more paperwork trails than politicians. At that rate we might not see the changeover until the year 2020. Like Nike always says: JUST DO IT and I'll add JUST DO IT NOW!!!


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

BTW, it's not going to be easy or simple to extend the deadline. After February 17 all broadcasts must be digital. They can't pass a new law saying you MUST broadcast analog, after all, some stations have already converted!

They would have to repeal the current law and create a NEW digital transition...


----------



## bferrell (Jun 22, 2005)

Delay? What?! That's not the change I was hoping for...


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

MichaelK said:


> If you were a volunteer fireman and got called to a big house fire and needed to talk to the volunteer fireman from the next town to ask for help but couldn't because you didn't have interoperable radios and were waiting on the new frequencies to get assigned to buy new radios that would work with other departments then you would care. If your house was the one on fire and those 2 fire departments cant communicate well and coordinate their efforts to save the place you would really care.


In Wilmington, where the transition already took place, firefighters spent the first few days installing digital converter boxes for people who couldn't figure out how to do it themselves. I think you would care if firefighters weren't available to save your house because they were too busy making sure someone could watch "Dancing with the Stars".


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

Adam1115 said:


> BTW, it's not going to be easy or simple to extend the deadline. After February 17 all broadcasts must be digital. They can't pass a new law saying you MUST broadcast analog, after all, some stations have already converted!
> 
> They would have to repeal the current law and create a NEW digital transition...


President Obama could issue an Executive Order which basically temporarily bypasses the law and freezes everything in place. But if Congress is opposed to it that might start things off on the wrong foot.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

I don't know that an Executive Order could do this. I think Obama is going to be very careful with his political capital. (Clinton wasted his fighting for gay rights in the military. This is not a for or against opinion on this issue) Making far-reaching executive orders was one of the criticisms of Bush so I think he will be more careful.


----------



## vstone (May 11, 2002)

He could easily sign an Executive Order and explain that he didn't want anybody missing March madness. Nobody sane would attck that, even if they should. There's already a bill floating around to extend the date, it's just that the Republicans are trying to crush it.


----------



## SpiritualPoet (Jan 14, 2007)

Obama doesn't have the authority to enforce a delay. The switch will occur as scheduled.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

BobCamp1 said:


> President Obama could issue an Executive Order which basically temporarily bypasses the law and freezes everything in place. But if Congress is opposed to it that might start things off on the wrong foot.


he spoke of it should be delayed to appease some constituent group - That is my guess.

I am sure he will leave it up to the FCC whether they take his advisement to delay or not, without much fuss from him.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

vstone said:


> He could easily sign an Executive Order and explain that he didn't want anybody missing March madness. Nobody sane would attck that, even if they should. There's already a bill floating around to extend the date, it's just that the Republicans are trying to crush it.


What are "Republicans"? Do they exist anymore? 

Obama may not have enough political capital now. This could be like the bailout package. The initial vote was against it, then the stock market tanked. Suddenly, everybody was mad it didn't pass, and there was plenty of political capital to get it passed the second time.

Perhaps let it switch off as planned but then step in and then order it (either directly via FCC or whip Congress) to switch it back on ASAP?

All I can tell you is that Wilmington was better prepared then the rest of us are, and they still had all kinds of problems.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

BobCamp1 said:


> Perhaps let it switch off as planned but then step in and then order it (either directly via FCC or whip Congress) to switch it back on ASAP?


That's even LESS possible.

How are you going to order someone to do that?

In denver, the analog towers are from the 50's and are non-conforming to current zoning. Once they cutover, they will be dismantled.

So now your new law is going to have to override local zoning and ordinances, and going to mandate they reconstruct towers...?

Plus you have the stations that flash cut to digital, you're now gonna shut off everyone's digital signal...

wow, what a nightmare just because some people don't have a converter box.


----------



## chummly138 (Jun 20, 2008)

I don't see the date being pushed back. With all the money on advertising already spent alone. If you can't pick up the signal with a digital antenna where you live get cable or satellite. Very simple solution. I hear way to many people complain about this. I'm excited to get rid of those terrible quality channels.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

Adam1115 said:


> That's even LESS possible.
> 
> How are you going to order someone to do that?
> 
> ...


I think you misread what I meant.

I meant, instead of turning it off for half-hour chunks which the previous (and useless) tests did, plan to turn analog off everywhere for just 24-48 hours and see what issues arise. If everything looks OK, leave it off. If not, turn analog back on until the summer. This will give people a chance to really figure out how the switch will impact them, and will also give broadcasters a chance to resolve certain issues. Such as our local TWC and DirecTV that is STILL TO THIS DAY using the analog feeds from these stations. (They promise to switch by Feb. 17, but that's cutting it a little close).

Many people are confused. Some people think you have to buy an HDTV even if you have cable. Some people don't realize you need a different and/or bigger antenna. Some people still have their VCR flashing at 12:00, and don't know how to install or use the new box.

The main problem is, no one in this forum is one of these people. I have tried explaining this to other people who are "not technically savvy", and many of them still just don't get it or thinks it affects them. And the estimated 8 million households that are still unprepared is not "some people".


----------



## vstone (May 11, 2002)

With this environment and the lack of resale value of some, maybe most of the equipment used for the analog tranmissions, if I were a station manager I would tell the station engineer to permanently disable analog tranmissions about 12:01 AM on FEB 17.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

BobCamp1 said:


> I think you misread what I meant.
> 
> I meant, instead of turning it off for half-hour chunks which the previous (and useless) tests did, plan to turn analog off everywhere for just 24-48 hours and see what issues arise. If everything looks OK, leave it off. If not, turn analog back on until the summer. This will give people a chance to really figure out how the switch will impact them, and will also give broadcasters a chance to resolve certain issues. Such as our local TWC and DirecTV that is STILL TO THIS DAY using the analog feeds from these stations. (They promise to switch by Feb. 17, but that's cutting it a little close).


Some stations are planning on having the old towers removed to make room for the new towers (and use a temporary tower in the mean time). Having a schedule like this would end up costing them a lot of money and have to put of the scheduling of it indefinitely until a decision is made. So instead of having marginal digital reception for a month. Now it might mean 6 months of marginal reception. So then you would inconvenience even more people for a longer period of time.


----------



## NickIN (Dec 26, 2002)

Why not just continue passing out the coupons? Since when has the government cared if they had the money to pay for something? Why start now? If the program is out of money just print more! $2 trillion deficit and they can't pay for a few more $40 converter boxes???


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

> Originally Posted by *BobCamp1*
> Some people don't realize you need a different and/or bigger antenna.


I hope most people don't realize this because it isn't true. Digital OTA signals are transmitted via UHF or VHF the same as analog OTA. There is no such thing as a "digital" antenna there are only UHF and/or VHF antennas and what you need depends on the actual frequency your local station will be broadcasting on after the change over. In my area it is still going to be a combination of both VHF and UHF no change from what analog is now. I have been using the same combo UHF/VHF antenna for both analog and digital some days the analog comes in better than digital and some days the digital comes in better than analog.

Thanks,


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

atmuscarella said:


> I hope most people don't realize this because it isn't true. Digital OTA signals are transmitted via UHF or VHF the same as analog OTA. There is no such thing as a "digital" antenna there are only UHF and/or VHF antennas and what you need depends on the actual frequency your local station will be broadcasting on after the change over. In my area it is still going to be a combination of both VHF and UHF no change from what analog is now. I have been using the same combo UHF/VHF antenna for both analog and digital some days the analog comes in better than digital and some days the digital comes in better than analog.
> 
> Thanks,


In our market, all the DTs are now UHF. After the transition (whenever it will be!), one goes to VHF. They're gonna be PO'd people in our area....


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

> In our market, all the DTs are now UHF. After the transition (whenever it will be!), one goes to VHF. They're gonna be PO'd people in our area....


Yes because for the last few years to many people have been pimping UHF only antennas as "digital" antennas because in most markets digital was UHF only. After the switch over digital will be a combination of VHF and UHF just like analog was so those who had antennas they were using for analog will likely be fine and those who got sold UHF only "digital" antenna may have to purchase something new. Many of those UHF only antennas will work with the upper part of the VHF spectrum so it may work out.


----------



## berkshires (Feb 22, 2007)

What kind of chaos do you all expect in the first hours (or days) both with TiVo's getting the right OTA freqs to match program data, AND the "unaffected" cable cos. retuning to get the correct signals on their systems????


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

atmuscarella said:


> I hope most people don't realize this because it isn't true.


If the old antenna doesn't work, and there's a good chance it won't, you'll need a bigger or different type of antenna. You just have to try it. Some people only have rabbit ears for VHF and not the "loop" for UHF and vice versa. Many people who were on the fringe may not get any signal at all. In some areas like mine, the towers are in a completely different location.

All of my DTV channels are on UHF. I was able to use my old antenna only after putting it on top of my kitchen cabinet. With analog, putting the antenna anywhere in the kitchen worked fine. For some reason, it seems to be worse in the winter than it was in the summer. I had no way of knowing this. I'd get an outdoor antenna, but I can't mount it with 3 feet of snow on the roof and on the ground. (Who the $^#% picked the middle of February?)

Also, my FOX and CBS affiliates are still taking turns shutting down the digital towers on weekends for some maintenance. This made watching football difficult. Today, my NBC affiliate will suddenly have a much weaker signal for three seconds and is frequently breaking up. My ABC affiliate does the same thing at least one every two weeks. Over the past few months, I have repeatedly had to fall back to the analog transmission which is stronger and on all the time.

I don't think the broadcasters are as ready as they say they are. I know the people aren't as ready as the government thinks they are. Pushing it back three months isn't going to cause anybody any massive problems. The towers can wait three more months to be torn down.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

berkshires said:


> What kind of chaos do you all expect in the first hours (or days) both with TiVo's getting the right OTA freqs to match program data, AND the "unaffected" cable cos. retuning to get the correct signals on their systems????


A "good chunk" of chaos for OTA. You may have to use manual recordings for a bit. But that will happen regardless of when the switch is made. As long as they aren't stupid and put the switch in the middle of sweeps dates, they'll be fine. They moved sweeps dates this year to March (instead of its usual Feb. slot) for that reason. Note that there are no sweeps weeks in the month of June, which is why the proposed bill pushes the cutoff to this month.


----------



## QZ1 (Mar 24, 2003)

vstone said:


> He could easily sign an Executive Order and explain that he didn't want anybody missing March madness. Nobody sane would attck that, even if they should. There's already a bill floating around to extend the date, it's just that the Republicans are trying to crush it.


The date was specifically chosen because it is halfway between the Super Bowl and the NCAA BBall Tourn. After that, there is the start of the MLB Season. Then, the NBA (and NHL) Playoffs. Then, the Indep. Day Fireworks on TV. See where I am going with this?


----------



## QZ1 (Mar 24, 2003)

vstone said:


> With this environment and the lack of resale value of some, maybe most of the equipment used for the analog tranmissions, if I were a station manager I would tell the station engineer to permanently disable analog tranmissions about 12:01 AM on FEB 17.


I believe it is 11:59:59 PM 17 Feb. / 12:00:00 AM 18 Feb.


----------



## QZ1 (Mar 24, 2003)

BobCamp1 said:


> I meant, instead of turning it off for half-hour chunks which the previous (and useless) tests did, plan to turn analog off everywhere for just 24-48 hours and see what issues arise. If everything looks OK, leave it off. If not, turn analog back on until the summer. This will give people a chance to really figure out how the switch will impact them, and will also give broadcasters a chance to resolve certain issues.


And you think everyone would work out the issues by then?
Sure more people would, but then in the Summer, there would still be plenty of people complaining again.


----------



## vstone (May 11, 2002)

I'm aware of why the date was chosen. As we type there is both a House bill and a Senate bill already floating around talking about JUN 12. However _NO_ money for additional converters. Obama's team has sent a second letter asking for a delay. FEB 17 is towards the end of regular season NCAABB, when things heat up. I don't see that as being much different from mid April. The craziest idea was to delay it one month - right in the middle of March Madness. That may have been related to the FCC getting ready to ask some stations to stay on the air for an additional month. Thankfully, that idea seems to have faded.

If they are going to delay it, I hope they at least make the stations run everything in a box (like weather and election notifications), to get everybody's attention.

One local station is hoping that their analog stuff will last until FEB 17. I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of "equipment failures" in that time frame.

Unrelated to the transition is the possibility of people cutting back their cable bills during the recession and wanting to use their clear QAM tuners. Anybody here think Obama has any knowledge of the clear QAM issue? (Sorry - that's a separate thread).


----------



## berkshires (Feb 22, 2007)

They should just delay it until the next time no one in the country is watching their TV.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

haven't they shut all analog down in some market in NC or SC as a test? did anything explode?


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

> Originally Posted by *BobCamp1*
> If the old antenna doesn't work, and there's a good chance it won't, you'll need a bigger or different type of antenna.


This maybe true for your physical location but it will not be the case for everyone or even the majority of people. I do pretty much agree with what you stated, in some areas towers will be moving which will benefit some and negatively impact others - in some areas channels will move from UHF to VHF and vise versa again this may negatively impact some but again it will benefit others.

I can also verify what you said about digital reception during the winter - since the beginning of December my reception has been crazy some days the channels are gone and others they are coming in great. My main Rochester NY stations are all broadcasting from the same area and are about 30/35 miles away. I have a roof top Channel Master CM 3671 Deepest Fringe antenna (rated for 60 miles UHF & 100 miles VHF) with a Channel Master CM 7777 Titan2 VHF/UHF Preamplifier running through new cable - it pretty much doesn't get any better than that and I still have trouble with both analog and digital depending on the day. My sister lives about 15/20 miles from the towers and gets great reception all the time (analog and digital) with old rabbit ears.

Good Luck,


----------



## mathwhiz (May 28, 2000)

Hawaii has also shut off analog - there are stations here and there that have also shut off analog. I know the local station engineers around my area said they will still shut off on 2/18 unless there is a law mandating they continue analog. This is because the stations have budgeted to not have to run 2 transmitters. If congress delays - they should fund the stations to keep it on. Also, our local PBS station has shut off analog and can no longer turn it on. Their temporary digital frequency has interference so our whole coverage area can't receive us until we switch to our permanent frequency. So a delay would cause people not to be able to watch WKAR for a longer period of time.

I wrote to my congressman and senators today asking them to vote No on any delays that may be presented.


----------



## vstone (May 11, 2002)

Wlimington, NC shut down analog in September as a test case (FCC Chair Martin is from NC). They had all sorts of problems and had the fire department answering trouble calls. I think they may have even stated up analog for another month.


----------



## dig_duggler (Sep 18, 2002)

Looks like June 12th. With Hutchison on board, seems pretty certain.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

dig_duggler said:


> Looks like June 12th. With Hutchison on board, seems pretty certain.


Son of a B*tch! 
So now we're going to let the needs of the few outweigh the needs of many.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

Does this mean that the stations *HAVE* to provide analog after Feb 17? I would think not, so I guess they could continue with their plans.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

> So now we're going to let the needs of the few outweigh the needs of many.


The news I saw this morning said there was something like 5.2 million households not ready for the change over - I think the mess with the coupons cemented the delay. To be honest June makes more sense to me than February anyways. Some people may have to re-point antennas or even get new ones, going up on roofs in February isn't my idea of fun plus by the time June gets here not much to miss if you lose OTA while you figure out what you have to do to get digital TV. I really don't care one way or the other, even though having analog as a backup for when digital goes out has been useful.

Thanks,


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

atmuscarella said:


> I really don't care one way or the other,


except for the ongoing threads here about what change means for my TiVo and now with the new improved extra additive subject of "What does the _delay_ mean for my TiVo"


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

> except for the ongoing threads here about what change means for my TiVo and now with the new improved extra additive subject of "What does the delay mean for my TiVo"


I am fairly sure that my TiVo will be just fine either way 

But I do like having topics like this around they make for some amusing posts


----------



## QZ1 (Mar 24, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> To be honest June makes more sense to me than February anyways. Some people may have to re-point antennas or even get new ones, going up on roofs in February isn't my idea of fun plus by the time June gets here not much to miss if you lose OTA while you figure out what you have to do to get digital TV. I really don't care one way or the other, even though having analog as a backup for when digital goes out has been useful.


Absolutely, it should have been set to a nice weather time, although it may be very hot in some areas. The generally mild weather times have too much on TV to choose those times, I guess.

I still think 12 June is a few days too early. I looked at the NBA Finals (ABC) schedule for last year, and Game 7 would have been Thur. 19 June, that Thur. would be the 18th this year. So, figure the game and/or celebration goes through to the 19th, and the parade is usually another day later on the 20th.

There could also be an emergency situation causing a delay. I think the World Series was delayed because of an earthquake. So, even the 20th, another 8 days later then they have proposed, might prove to be insufficient. Probably, the transition should have been proposed for the somewhere between 22nd to 26th; still plenty of time until 4 July. They pay attention to the Super Bowl and NCAA BB, but not NBA Finals? It isn't as popular, but still is popular enough.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

The new date will be June 12. The bill is expected to easily pass. It easily avoids sweeps weeks. Congress isn't too worried about sports -- that's not the demographic that hasn't switched yet.

As has always been the case, a station may choose to shut off analog transmissions before the date. And as has almost always been the case, nobody has. Except for Hawaii, where no one uses OTA because of the volcanoes and they have endangered birds to worry about.

I still like my idea of going dark for 24 hours to kick people in the you-know-where. Although there aren't enough converter boxes, satellite boxes, or cables boxes to cover all the people who haven't switched yet. 

And somebody in this forum owes me $50 because I won a bet.


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

BobCamp1 said:


> Although there aren't enough converter boxes, satellite boxes, or cables boxes to cover all the people who haven't switched yet.
> 
> D


What makes you say this. There were 41 million coupons issued and only 38 million sets were originally estimated to be affected. When the unused coupons expire (which they are doing daily) more will be issued. And I would assume that there many millions of these boxes sitting in inventory right now.


----------



## vstone (May 11, 2002)

Unless Congress does something, there is no money left to redeem additional (ie new), or possibly any outstanding, coupons.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

jrm01 said:


> What makes you say this. There were 41 million coupons issued and only 38 million sets were originally estimated to be affected. When the unused coupons expire (which they are doing daily) more will be issued. And I would assume that there many millions of these boxes sitting in inventory right now.


I suspect a number of the coupon receipts aren't part of the 38 million set owners but people who think they'll be able to sell the box on ebay for more then the $10 or less they paid after applying the voucher.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

It does not matter what the government decides. The stations* COULD *choose to just switch over anyway.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

magnus said:


> It does not matter what the government decides. The stations* COULD *choose to just switch over anyway.


http://www.palmbeachpost.com/hp/content/business/epaper/2009/01/21/a6b_dtvearly_0122.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122161286467845981.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Yep. They could have cut the analog signal at any time. But only 80 out of 1700 have. You'd think more would have done it if they were truly ready and they thought their customers were also truly ready. I think the major networks are making the affiliates keep the analog on for as long as possible. They will lose revenue from the advertisers if viewership suddenly drops by 3-10% nationwide.

At least the government is now allowing people with expired coupons to reapply. Many (not too bright) people jumped the gun and ordered their coupons too early. The coupons expired before any boxes were on the market!


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

I don't think it's a stretch that there will be some stations that will just do what was planned on the 17th. I'm sure that there are several that have sold equipment on the 17th and will be ready to dismantle it around that date. 

There has been more than enough warning. A delay is not really needed. I thought this President was going to bring us further into the digital age.... not delay it.


----------



## Dmon4u (Jul 15, 2000)

It's my understand now that my local ABC & CBS channels are scheduled to disconnect and remove their Analog Transmitters on the original date. The ABC station has said that they will cancel this only if the Government pays the cancellation Fees.

Otherwise:http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/162623-Hutchison_June_12_Would_Be_Final_DTV_Date.php

"Now the bill 1) makes explicit that the move to June 12 is voluntary--stations can switch Feb. 17 if they wish, or between that date and the new hard date; 2) if a station switches early and has spectrum being reclaimed and given to emergency communications, those first responders can immediately start using it; 3) consumers with expired coupons can reapply for them (the House version has a similar provision)."


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

BobCamp1 said:


> Many (not too bright) people jumped the gun and ordered their coupons too early. The coupons expired before any boxes were on the market!


Where did you come up with this? The earliest date to apply was January 1, 2008. The initial shipment of coupons was a week later. That means that the earliest expiration date would have been about April 7th. By mid-February the boxes were available at most major retailers and on-line. There were some shortages in early March, but most stocks were back up by the end of March.


----------



## jay0k (Nov 8, 2008)

I hope nothing terrible happens between February 17th and June 12. One of the 9/11 commission recommendations was the immediate shut down of analog television broadcast to free up those frequencies for emergency first responders.

Anyone remember that the Vice President, Dick Cheney, was unable to communicate with the President, George W. Bush? George Bush was also having issues communicating with the Secretary of Defense. That's a big problem in the 21st century. All the standard channels of communication were clogged and first responders were unable to communicate on 9/11 and during Katrina.

It's also believed some firefighters responding to the attack on the second World Trade Tower could of had their lives saved. They lacked situational awareness meaning they had no idea the first tower collapsed and that most people in the second tower who could get out were already out. Several engineers in helicopters surveying the damage were predicting the second tower collapse but they were unable to successfully communicate this.


----------



## mathwhiz (May 28, 2000)

Also - can stations switch to their permanent frequency on 2/18?


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

It sounds like this is going to turn into a big mess.

If people weren't confused before they will be now.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

That's exactly my point half the stations will likely change over to all digital and half will not. This is going to be very confusing for consumers.



aaronwt said:


> It sounds like this is going to turn into a big mess.
> 
> If people weren't confused before they will be now.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

aaronwt said:


> It sounds like this is going to turn into a big mess.
> 
> If people weren't confused before they will be now.


All this for the 5% of the households that can't get their act together.


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

magnus said:


> That's exactly my point half the stations will likely change over to all digital and half will not. This is going to be very confusing for consumers.


It's not a matter of stations "changing over to digital". The vast majority of them have had both on the air for quite some time. Those people who have the box and are watching the digital stations won't be affected if the analogs are not turned off on schedule.

delaying the change over may be a dumb idea, but I don't think it should add any confusion.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> To be honest June makes more sense to me than February anyways. Some people may have to re-point antennas or even get new ones, going up on roofs in February isn't my idea of fun


For much of the United States, February is a much better time. If you think standing on a rooftop in 20 degree F weather is not fun, try it sometime when rooftop temperatures may exceed 120 F, as they do here in June.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

steve614 said:


> Son of a B*tch!
> So now we're going to let the needs of the few outweigh the needs of many.


1. No reasonable or acceptable form of government ever considers the needs of the many one way or the other. Only the needs of the individual are important, and the needs of 10 individuals are no more important than the needs of 1.

2. Not that I am for delaying the transition, but how would doing so impact the needs of the many? With the exception of a very small number of companies, no one has an immediate "need" to convert to digital.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

I disagree. There are already a great deal of people that are confused by the whole thing. Having half of the stations digital only and half digital/analog will lead to more confusion. The government just needs to let the digital transition happen as scheduled.



jrm01 said:


> delaying the change over may be a dumb idea, but I don't think it should add any confusion.


----------



## markens (Apr 12, 2007)

Here's a really good summary (with references) of various issues regarding the delay, and is well worth reading:

http://dtvswitch.blogspot.com/2009/01/one-month-and-counting-will-we-or-wont.html​
There are many dependencies (such as pre- and post-transition frequency assignments, maximum power levels to reduce interference) which have been coordinated based on the Feb 17 date. Seems very doubtful that the ad-hoc nature of the proposed bills will adequately address these technical orchestrations, and will cause much more confusion in the end.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

That's a very good summary of the problem with the delay.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

lrhorer said:


> For much of the United States, February is a much better time. If you think standing on a rooftop in 20 degree F weather is not fun, try it sometime when rooftop temperatures may exceed 120 F, as they do here in June.


I've lived in both places.

I can't stand on my roof in February without a lot of work. Unless it snows 10 feet in which case I can just walk up to my roof without a ladder.  Plus, I'd have to get up there and shovel it off anyway.

I can stand on your roof in June in the early morning and late afternoon. I can even do it for an hour in the middle of the day or all day if it's cloudy.

As far as the "problem" with the delay, the only problem is how it's being done. It's being done as well as the original planned switch -- poorly.

Ironically, my PBS station (the only that has been rock solid the entire time) will have to LOWER its power after the switch because NBC is moving to the channel RIGHT NEXT TO IT!!! All these free channels and they have to pick two right next to each other?

Now I have to go back and watch the analog version of FOX -- the digital version is breaking up for some reason yet again.


----------



## vstone (May 11, 2002)

Delaying the shutoff to June doesn't mean anyone has to wait until June to put up a new antenna. If they put ot off and it gets to hot. That's really their problem, not the governments, the TV stations, or anyone else. OTOH, the cynical among us seeing this long term indecision on the part of the federal goverenment may wonder what else may change,


----------



## Dmon4u (Jul 15, 2000)

You also have to consider the usual data in regard to HDTV:

http://www.multichannel.com/article...of_U_S_HDTV_Owners_Receive_HD_Programming.php

Currently, "Of the estimated 39 million U.S. households that now own an HDTV set, just 22 million -- or 56% -- are actually receiving high-definition programming from a cable provider or another source, according to research firm In-Stat."

and

" Leichtman Research Group estimated in a November 2008 report that about 58% of all households with HDTVs are now watching HD programming from a multichannel video provider, while about 18% of HDTV owners continue think that they are watching HD programming but are not."

I still have a friend with a Tv that's at least 10 years old that thinks/insists that he is getting HD every time one of those "Brought to you in HD by _______." logos appears. He thinks it's the signal that determines HD not the Set. Then, again, I've got another friend that thinks the whole HD thing is just 'Wide Screen'.... and so on and so on....

* And, yes, I do actually have some friends that actually do know how HDTV works !


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

lrhorer said:


> ...
> 
> 2. Not that I am for delaying the transition, but how would doing so impact the needs of the many? With the exception of a very small number of companies, no one has an immediate "need" to convert to digital.


probably no one "needs" anything. But there are downsides to delaying things. Although minor- pretty much any one person could be effected.

I posted some examples above- but a few are that
-who own's these company's that will be forced to pay more? stockholders- which are basically people. (small issue measures but probably effects many people considering how widely held some of the stocks in question are)
-there's wasted resources in energy and equipment and maybe labor (again effects everyone- big debate can ensue if we care about the CO2 emmited or not- laughing)
-and if one's house happens to catch on fire in the mean time but the local fire department doesnt have a means currently to quickly and easily talk to the fire department in the next town over then it could very well be a bad thing. (effects hopefully just a handfull of people but when it does it could be catastrophic)

I'm not sure how all this works out if they make it wishy washy like it sounds- what if Station A wants to make the final switch in Feb but Station B has their analog station running on that frequency and decides to wait it out? Who decides? Typical government cluster F


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> probably no one "needs" anything. But there are downsides to delaying things. Although minor- pretty much any one person could be effected.
> 
> I posted some examples above- but a few are that
> -who own's these company's that will be forced to pay more? stockholders- which are basically people. (small issue measures but probably effects many people considering how widely held some of the stocks in question are)
> -there's wasted resources in energy and equipment and maybe labor (again effects everyone- big debate can ensue if we care about the CO2 emmited or not- laughing)


The way the bill is currently being presented is that that stations could choose to cut on 2/17 if they wish. So those issues do not affect the TV station should they choose to continue on with the cutover.


----------



## Dancar (Oct 8, 2001)

Dmon4u said:


> Currently, "Of the estimated 39 million U.S. households that now own an HDTV set, just 22 million -- or 56% -- are actually receiving high-definition programming from a cable provider or another source, according to research firm In-Stat."
> 
> and
> 
> " Leichtman Research Group estimated in a November 2008 report that about 58% of all households with HDTVs are now watching HD programming from a multichannel video provider, while about 18% of HDTV owners continue think that they are watching HD programming but are not."


I find that statistic hard to beleive.

First of all, when a non-cable subscriber buys an HDTV set and does a channel scan of OTA channels in their area (they have to do thing before they watch _anything_), they are going to discover the HD versions of their local network affiliates, notice how beautiful the HD picture is, and watch those channels whenever they can.

I suppose that some people buy HDTVs and attach them to their old SD cable boxes. But I would think that when you're paying more $1000 for a new TV, you'd expect the picture to be at least $500 better than a CRT set that you could buy for $500 10 years ago - an SD cablebox, expecially with an RF or composite output can't deliver that.

OTOH, I hear about people who watch SD in stretch mode, so maybe I'm wrong.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Adam1115 said:


> The way the bill is currently being presented is that that stations could choose to cut on 2/17 if they wish. So those issues do not affect the TV station should they choose to continue on with the cutover.


except-

1) what happens when station A wants to cut and but they have to wait on Station B that is sitting on the final channel with their old analog and wont shut off? Who pays the electric bill? 
2) There are societal impacts to wasting finite resources- so it effects us all when someone else decides to waste piles of electricity. (how much so is an issue up for debate obviously). 
3) some poor shmucks house burning down becasue the stations in his market wont vacate the emergency response channels doesn't go away no matter how you slice it.

also- not sure when verizon and ATT were told they would get the spectrum that they paid billions for- maybe they care to wait another 6 months? (and maybe it has no effect).

my point is- NOTHING the government does is without consequence. I'm not arguing for or against anything- just saying there's always more to things then what quickly meets the eye. Personally i think it's wastefull and pointless to wait so long, but if the powers that be have actually looked at all the issues and decided this is best then go right ahead. But I dont trust the powers to be to have done their homework- plenty readily admit they dont even read the bills they vote on.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Dancar said:


> I find that statistic hard to beleive.
> 
> First of all, when a non-cable subscriber buys an HDTV set and does a channel scan of OTA channels in their area (they have to do thing before they watch _anything_), they are going to discover the HD versions of their local network affiliates, notice how beautiful the HD picture is, and watch those channels whenever they can.
> 
> ...


I hate to say it but you are wrong.

My next door neighbor bought an HDTV several months ago- still connected to his SD satellite box, never watched a single second of HD on it. NEVER. My brother-in-law got an HDTV (HE'S A PE)- and connected to FIOS via his SD box and didn't get that it's not HD untill me and my other brother in law told him. My Partner (smartest guy I know- I trust my business to him)- swore to me for weeks that Directv had the big10 (or whatever the college football network is)in HD and that he was watching it in HD for weeks before Directv had turned on the HD feed becasue he read an errant post on the internet that it was already turned on.

These are all the late to the game folks. I have plenty of friends who got in early and investigated it all to death and they all understand. But seems the later on people who are converting becasue its convenient (that's all they sell basically now a days in the store) and not becasue they actively sought out HD dont have a clue.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> 1) what happens when station A wants to cut and but they have to wait on Station B that is sitting on the final channel with their old analog and wont shut off? Who pays the electric bill?


Is that a valid situation anywhere? I believe stations FLASH Cutting are cutting back to their own frequency.



MichaelK said:


> 2) There are societal impacts to wasting finite resources- so it effects us all when someone else decides to waste piles of electricity. (how much so is an issue up for debate obviously).


Yes, well, the government is deciding that if a station is free to choose to stay on the air for 4 months and waste electricity.

If that's your concern, call your senator and complain about the electricity waste.



MichaelK said:


> 3) some poor shmucks house burning down becasue the stations in his market wont vacate the emergency response channels doesn't go away no matter how you slice it.


I have no idea what you're talking about.

Nobody's house is going to burn down if we don't shut off analog tv.

Yes, some public safety have received new 700 MHz licenses. It will delay them cutting over to 700 MHz radios, but their existing radios will continue to work fine.

I'm not saying it SHOULDN'T be postponed, but really? You think if they postpone it people's houses are going to burn down because fire radios will stop working? Are you being serious?



MichaelK said:


> also- not sure when verizon and ATT were told they would get the spectrum that they paid billions for- maybe they care to wait another 6 months? (and maybe it has no effect).


My guess is around 3/17, I think there is a 30 day 'night light' provision that allows stations to continue to broadcast emergency messages in analog.

Yes, they'd have to wait.

Not six months. Four.



MichaelK said:


> my point is- NOTHING the government does is without consequence.


Of course, is that in dispute?


----------



## a68oliver (Jul 15, 2000)

Adam1115 said:


> Is that a valid situation anywhere? I believe stations FLASH Cutting are cutting back to their own frequency.


It appears to be a concern in Muncie/Indianapolis, Indiana. WIPB 49.1 is moving from 52DT pre-transition to 23DT post-transition. WNDY 23 analog currently is on that channel just a few miles away.

It is true that a couple of other stations in the market will be moving back to their old analog frequency.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

a68oliver said:


> It appears to be a concern in Muncie/Indianapolis, Indiana. WIPB 49.1 is moving from 52DT pre-transition to 23DT post-transition. WNDY 23 analog currently is on that channel just a few miles away.
> 
> It is true that a couple of other stations in the market will be moving back to their old analog frequency.


Ok. A few stations may not be able to move for four months.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

Adam1115 said:


> Ok. A few stations may not be able to move for four months.


And if I was that station owner, I'd be _pissed_ and look to seek reparations from the other station for delaying my switch.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

steve614 said:


> And if I was that station owner, I'd be _pissed_ and look to seek reparations from the other station for delaying my switch.


The station can be pissed, but if the bill passes, it will be within the other stations legal rights.

Better to focus that energy on calling congress people and asking them to vote no on the extension.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jEqzyZfGUgUWJQfcJ98kJK_LiiOwD95V41187



> Delaying the upcoming digital TV transition for four months would cost public broadcasters $22 million, the PBS system chief estimated on Monday.
> 
> Paula Kerger, president and CEO of the Public Broadcasting System, said she hopes lawmakers keep that in mind as they consider legislation to delay the switch from Feb. 17 to June 12.
> 
> ...


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Adam1115 said:


> Is that a valid situation anywhere? I believe stations FLASH Cutting are cutting back to their own frequency.
> 
> Yes, well, the government is deciding that if a station is free to choose to stay on the air for 4 months and waste electricity.
> 
> ...


Some people act like there is no consequence to waiting around forever.

the issue with emergency responders basically amounts to the communication systems cobbled together over the course of the last century weren't thought out with the ability to talk to other agencies easily. So as an example the fire department in your town can't easily talk to the fire department in the next town. Sometimes your town might get arraingments with the neighboring town to each get radios with each others fire department channels. But they might only get the surround 8-10 towns. So if there was a major thing going on where they needed to talk to 3 towns over no luck. then the fire department in your town probably can talk to the police in your town but although they can talk to the next door fire department they might not be able to talk to the neighboring police. Some areas set up a "statewide" channel so every fire department can talk to any other fire department in the state on that channel- not the best solution though when you have 20 fire departments trying to talk to others when all 20 are on that 1 statewide channel at once. it's just a big mess. Part of that sort of inability to talk to others cost the lives of people on 9/11 and probably to a lessor extent happens regularly.

it could all be fixes probably without the new spectrum. But everyone put their eggs in this new spectrum being the answer- so they held off on other solutions to wait for the new "magic spectrum"

that's how this all can have an effect on public safety and emergency responders.

It's not likely to happen, but when it does it can be life of death for the poor sucker involved.

In the case of a house fire- say a house goes up- it's a big hot fire so your local volunteer department calls 2 surrounding towns for help. The town to the east's truck gets their first and their guys go in. Your fire department pulls up and backs them up. The town to the west pulls up next and one of their guys sees the roof about to collapse so he gets on the radio and tries to let everone know- since he is 2 towns away his radio doesn't have the ability to take to east-towns' guys those guys in the house dont get the warning right away.

That's all vastly simplified but sort of explains the public service issue.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

headline on abcnews. com



> Breaking News: Senate Approves Four-Month Hold on Digital TV Conversion


looking for the story


----------



## timr_42 (Oct 14, 2001)

4 months.
LOL

http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE50Q03M20090127

This is the government that we want to trust with everything else. They can't even manage this.

Idiots on both sides !!

LOL


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

seems no one has details

here's the linnk to nbc- says refresh for details. I guess they are physically writing the story now?

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Senate-Approves-Delay-in-Digital-TV-Transition.html

reuters has some basic info
http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE50Q03M20090127



> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Senate passed a bill on Monday to delay the nationwide switch to digital TV signals, giving consumers nearly four more months to prepare.
> 
> The transition date would move to June 12 from February 17 under the bill that was fueled by worries that viewers are not technically ready for the congressionally-mandated switch-over.
> 
> ...


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> the issue with emergency responders basically amounts to the communication systems cobbled together over the course of the last century weren't thought out with the ability to talk to other agencies easily. So as an example the fire department in your town can't easily talk to the fire department in the next town. Sometimes your town might get arraingments with the neighboring town to each get radios with each others fire department channels. But they might only get the surround 8-10 towns. So if there was a major thing going on where they needed to talk to 3 towns over no luck. then the fire department in your town probably can talk to the police in your town but although they can talk to the next door fire department they might not be able to talk to the neighboring police. Some areas set up a "statewide" channel so every fire department can talk to any other fire department in the state on that channel- not the best solution though when you have 20 fire departments trying to talk to others when all 20 are on that 1 statewide channel at once. it's just a big mess. Part of that sort of inability to talk to others cost the lives of people on 9/11 and probably to a lessor extent happens regularly.


24 MHz of 700 MHz spectrum won't fix all of that.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> Some people act like there is no consequence to waiting around forever.


There is a huge difference between four months and forever.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

timr_42 said:


> Idiots on both sides !!


Are you telling us you just figured this out?


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Dancar said:


> I find that statistic hard to beleive.


I don't. I find it depressing, but not hard to believe. The level of technical illiteracy in this nation is appalling in the extreme.



Dancar said:


> I suppose that some people buy HDTVs and attach them to their old SD cable boxes.


Yep.



Dancar said:


> But I would think that when you're paying more $1000 for a new TV, you'd expect the picture to be at least $500 better than a CRT set that you could buy for $500 10 years ago - an SD cablebox, expecially with an RF or composite output can't deliver that.


No, but the picture may be larger and look much better than on the old set, even if it is SD. My roommate says she cannot tell the difference between SD and HD.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Woohoo.. This bill is also letting us get new coupons for those of us that have expired ones.. Woohoo! (Admittedly, I don't have an antenna yet, but I still think these will be useful, esp to my non-Tivo recorder to record at least _one_ OTA channel unattended..)


----------



## pl1 (Jan 18, 2007)

Dancar said:


> But I would think that when you're paying more $1000 for a new TV, you'd expect the picture to be at least $500 better than a CRT set that you could buy for $500 10 years ago - an SD cablebox, expecially with an RF or composite output can't deliver that.





lrhorer said:


> No, but the picture may be larger and look much better than on the old set, even if it is SD. My roommate says she cannot tell the difference between SD and HD.


My brother would not believe me when I told him he had to call the cablco and get an HD box. He would only believe this when someone else at work told him the same thing. He has more than 4 years of college. It makes you wonder how many HD TV's are out there with only an SD signal.

He even hired someone for surround sound and I guess the issue never came up.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

pl1 said:


> My brother would not believe me when I told him he had to call the cablco and get an HD box. He would only believe this when someone else at work told him the same thing. He has more than 4 years of college. It makes you wonder how many HD TV's are out there with only an SD signal.


lots and lots and lots.


----------



## tootal2 (Oct 14, 2005)

timr_42 said:


> 4 months.
> LOL
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE50Q03M20090127
> ...


4 more months from now. some people still wont be ready so they will delay it again then again.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

lew said:


> What about a compromise? Leave the 4 network stations in analog for an extra month or two but start moving the rest of the stations. Once people start losing stations they'll take the change over seriously.


Some of the smaller independent stations have already shut off their analog signals. At least three in this area have. Others are running at reduced power.

People still don't get the message.

It has to be cold turkey for it to work. Either that or do it market by market over 6 months or so.


----------



## vstone (May 11, 2002)

A few small PBS ststions have alos turned off they analog transmitters.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

tootal2 said:


> 4 more months from now. some people still wont be ready so they will delay it again then again.


Yep, but I can't see them delaying it past the end of this year, because those old folks go out and vote. In droves. They'll take the hit this year when Judge Judy goes away for a while but not in an election year.


----------



## vstone (May 11, 2002)

Part of deal is for the Dems not to try to dealy it again. FWIW.


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

I bet I quit smoking before they quit analog. I was going to do it last month, but my mind is only 94&#37; ready.


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

What I want to know is what happend to the *15 BILLION* dollars that AT&T and Verizon both paid to the US Goverment in purchase of the airwaves/bandwidth that would be freed up by the DTV switchover.

The 15 Billion that they paid should more than cover the cost of the "COUPONS"....

Here's the other thing. A Freind of mine owns a small electronics company that has contracts with AT&T & Verizon that would provide work because of the BANDWIDTH/AIRWAVES that they purchased. Now that the delay is coming...

*HE WILL HAVE TO LAY OFF OVER* 100 Employees that he hired for the upcoming work needed to help AT&T and Verizon to make use of the freed up airwaves.

Sure of course he will hire them back In Late May again.

But in the mean time... 100 employees are out of work, making no income!

TGC


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Adam1115 said:


> 24 MHz of 700 MHz spectrum won't fix all of that.


apparently the 9/11 commission and all the interested parties think it will make a significant dent.

(I seem to recall that the "reasonable" people thought twice that amount should get alloted)

and considering a the cellular services can service thousands of users in a small area at once with an amount in that ballpark- doesn't seem insane that some new built for it from the gorund up system wouldn't be able to service hundreds of agencies at the same time.

But honestly I dont know at all what the plan is or how it's supposed to change things.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

TexasGrillChef said:


> What I want to know is what happend to the *15 BILLION* dollars that AT&T and Verizon both paid to the US Goverment in purchase of the airwaves/bandwidth that would be freed up by the DTV switchover.
> 
> The 15 Billion that they paid should more than cover the cost of the "COUPONS"....
> 
> ...


Based on my experience, that's what happens when you work with the Federal government, either directly or indirectly. Sometimes it's great, and sometimes, not so great.

Also, as far as the public safety spectrum goes, it's one thing to get it, it's quite another to actually use it properly.


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

BobCamp1 said:


> Based on my experience, that's what happens when you work with the Federal government, either directly or indirectly. Sometimes it's great, and sometimes, not so great.
> 
> Also, as far as the public safety spectrum goes, it's one thing to get it, it's quite another to actually use it properly.


I can promise you those 100 employees among others that are being layed off because of the DELAY in the DTV transition saying to dam bad if you don't have a TV that work. Tuff ****. They would much rather have their jobs than you get TV service.

Hmmmm a few people without TV service & them having a job is what I think would be best for the country. If you can't afford $50 for an adapter. Then maybe you shouldn't watch TV.

PEOPLE NEED JOBS!

TGC


----------



## Dmon4u (Jul 15, 2000)

The first HD DTV station was WRAL in 1997. There's been what, 3 or 4 Hard Deadlines for this Transition ? We are now up to the 5th delay ?


----------



## SCSIRAID (Feb 2, 2003)

The house bill to delay 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/


----------



## Dancar (Oct 8, 2001)

lrhorer said:


> No, but the picture may be larger and look much better than on the old set, even if it is SD. My roommate says she cannot tell the difference between SD and HD.


The picture is larger but not better. In fact, because HD panals are sharper, any artifacts and interference is even more visible and may make the SD picture look worse! In her office my wife has our old Series I TiVo connected to a 20" HDTV, and it does not look at good as it used to on our old 29" CRT set.

Has your roomate seen real HD on a large (40+) panel? I find it hard to believe than anyone using QAM tuning can flip between SD and HD versions of the same station (like 4 and 4.1) during a show shot in HD and not tell the difference.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

SCSIRAID said:


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


Direct link.

Yay, the House amazingly has some sense about this. But it won't last - I predict another push to force this through because of the unanimous Senate vote for it.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

The vote: http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2009&rollnumber=41

Will they stand on principle or are they just trying to get some pork? We'll soon see...


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

I hope not... I am so glad the House defeated it.

The delay will cause job loss, layoffs & the consumer more money in the long run with higher prices

TGC

*P.S. To dam bad for the 6.5 Million housholds not prepared for the switchover...
BETTER THEM WITHOUT TV, then MORE AMERICANS WITHOUT JOBS!*

Besides that... what I keep asking is what happend to the 15 BILLION dollars that AT&T and Verizon paid for the new bandwidth?


----------



## kibo (Nov 19, 2000)

It lost due to a procedural move that required a 2/3 vote to carry it. This was because it was presented under suspension of the rules. The suspension of rules allows a bill to be fastracked -- debate is limited, no amendments/pork can be added, but the 2/3 majority is a large hurdle.

For now, the future of a transition delay remains unclear. The bill's supporters could go to the House Rules Committee to obtain a rule for debate next week. That would allow the measure to pass by a simple majority vote, which seems in the bag, but would risk a Republican request to send the bill back to committee for reconsideration.

Option #2 is that the House Democrats abandon trying to delay the DTV transition entirely, and are content to just blame the Republicans for any problems occur.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

kibo said:


> It lost due to a procedural move that required a 2/3 vote to carry it. This was because it was presented under suspension of the rules. The suspension of rules allows a bill to be fastracked -- debate is limited, no amendments/pork can be added, but the 2/3 majority is a large hurdle.
> 
> For now, the future of a transition delay remains unclear. The bill's supporters could go to the House Rules Committee to obtain a rule for debate next week. That would allow the measure to pass by a simple majority vote, which seems in the bag, but would risk a Republican request to send the bill back to committee for reconsideration.
> 
> Option #2 is that the House Democrats abandon trying to delay the DTV transition entirely, and are content to just blame the Republicans for any problems occur.


And is THIS where the democrats want to draw the line in the sand? I think there are more pressing issues....


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Adam1115 said:


> And is THIS where the democrats want to draw the line in the sand? I think there are more pressing issues....


Well, this one they can "solve"; the others... much more risky.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Mel Brooks said it best:

"We've got to protect our phony-baloney jobs, gentlemen!"


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Dancar said:


> The picture is larger but not better.


It depends on the quality of the old set. 'Not related to SD vs. HD, of course, but the old set may have had any number of problems. It was after all, old.



Dancar said:


> In fact, because HD panals are sharper, any artifacts and interference is even more visible and may make the SD picture look worse!


It can depend upon a number of factors, including how well the two sets are adjusted. If the signal is high quality and free of artifacts, and if the two sets are both properly adjusted, the picture should look very much the same.



Dancar said:


> In her office my wife has our old Series I TiVo connected to a 20" HDTV, and it does not look at good as it used to on our old 29" CRT set.


If there are obvious artifacts, you might think about having your CATV provider look at the signal.



Dancar said:


> Has your roomate seen real HD on a large (40+) panel?


I have a 61" DLP and a 131" projector. The 61" has a compromised (but still half decent) 5.1 Audio system. The 131" has a THX compliant system, excepting the anechoic chamber. She prefers watching her 12" CRT with monaural audio on a 3-1/2" internal speaker.



Dancar said:


> I find it hard to believe than anyone using QAM tuning can flip between SD and HD versions of the same station (like 4 and 4.1) during a show shot in HD and not tell the difference.


What can I say? She claims to have compared them side-by-side.


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

kibo said:


> It lost due to a procedural move that required a 2/3 vote to carry it. This was because it was presented under suspension of the rules. The suspension of rules allows a bill to be fastracked -- debate is limited, no amendments/pork can be added, but the 2/3 majority is a large hurdle.
> 
> For now, the future of a transition delay remains unclear. The bill's supporters could go to the House Rules Committee to obtain a rule for debate next week. That would allow the measure to pass by a simple majority vote, which seems in the bag, but would risk a Republican request to send the bill back to committee for reconsideration.
> 
> Option #2 is that the House Democrats abandon trying to delay the DTV transition entirely, and are content to just blame the Republicans for any problems occur.


Texas Congressman Barton has said that he will request it be sent back to committee for reconsideration, as well as take any means nessary to *DELAY* the bill getting passed. There are only 20 days left.

I am hoping for Option #2... Republicans will be more than happy to take the blame.

*SAVE AMERICAN JOBS! Don't Delay the DTV Transition!*

TGC

Texas Congressman Joe Barton knows that their will be big job lay off's in Texas if the delay is approved. Job lay off's of people that actually vote for him.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

TexasGrillChef said:


> Texas Congressman Barton has said that he will request it be sent back to committee for reconsideration, as well as take any means nessary to *DELAY* the bill getting passed. There are only 20 days left.
> 
> I am hoping for Option #2... Republicans will be more than happy to take the blame.
> 
> ...


I'm all for ending analog transmissions come February 17th as planned (most recently, at least), but I have no idea why some are calling it an issue over saving American jobs. Care to enlighten us?


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

dswallow said:


> I'm all for ending analog transmissions come February 17th as planned (most recently, at least), but I have no idea why some are calling it an issue over saving American jobs. Care to enlighten us?


A friend of mine owns a small buisness that has contracts with both AT&T & Verizon to do work in the Texas area in regards to the "Airwaves" that were purchased by both AT&T and Verizon. His company would be installing equipment and providing other services as a result of the new "bandwidth" that was purchased by them.

His company has hired an *ADDITIONAL* 80+ employees & is currently training them for the work that these contracts with AT&T and Verizon has created. He was notified by AT&T AND Verizon that should the delay be approved until June. That the services needed by them (AT&T and Verizon) would also be delayed until June as well. If this was the case. He would have to *LAY OFF* these 80+ workers for the next aproximately 4 months.

His company isn't the only one that has contracts in the *TEXAS* area with AT&T and Verizon to provide equipment and services as a result of their aquisition of new bandwidth from the FCC. His company is working with 4 other contracters as well that have contracts with AT&T & Verizon. He has told me that if the delay is passed, those 4 other companies will have to lay off a big segment of their employees as well for 4 months.

Thats just the North Texas area. That doesn't take in all the other companies that have contracts around Texas & the country with AT&T & Verizon.

I am sure that about 250 employees doesn't sound like much when other companies are laying off 3,000 to 5,000 people as well. However, if your one of those 250 people I am sure you wouldn't be very happy.

True the lay-off would only last about 4 months. However, how would you like to be laid off for 4 months?

P.S. That doesn't even account for the contracts that were made for the "Public Emergency Services" of the free airwaves that will be available as well. Many goverment agencies (Local, state & Federal) have also made contracts with many other companies that would also be delayed to some extent by the DTV transition delay. I am sure these companies would have to lay off employees for 4 months as well.

Then their are the contracts that would disasemble & remove the analog transmitting towers & equipment. Those contracts will be delayed as well.

One Dallas Station has sold/Donated some of their Analog tramiting equipment to a 3rd world country as well. That sale/donation would be delayed and could possibly have politcal impact on the area that was finanly going to have Television access.

TGC


----------



## Dancar (Oct 8, 2001)

lrhorer said:


> _Originally Posted by Dancar
> In fact, because HD panals are sharper, any artifacts and interference is even more visible and may make the SD picture look worse!_
> 
> It can depend upon a number of factors, including how well the two sets are adjusted. If the signal is high quality and free of artifacts, and if the two sets are both properly adjusted, the picture should look very much the same.
> ...


When we first got our 46" Sony and connected our TiVo to it, it was awful. This would be at a viewing distance of about 10 feet, in the same position as the 29" Philips/Magnaxov is replaced (about 9 years old). We originally bought that set because it was in the mid-price range, and we thought it had the pleasing picture in it's price range. The picture softened the TiVo's digital artifacts slightly so that you has to actively look for them to see them.

HDTV's seem to come with the sharpness setting optimized for HD, which I would think could be sharpened more than SD without creating artifacts. Our 46" LDC made all of the TiVo Series I artifacts larger and more visible with the greater sharpness.

The Series I now sits in my wife's office with a 20" HD LCD. The viewing distance is about three feet, and I can see that artifacts are more noticeable due to the greater sharpness, as well as the closer viewing distance. Since this TV is used with the TiVo 90 percent of the time, I suppose I could lower the sharpness setting, but my wife isn't complaining so I'm not messing with it.



> I have a 61" DLP and a 131" projector. The 61" has a compromised (but still half decent) 5.1 Audio system. The 131" has a THX compliant system, excepting the anechoic chamber. She prefers watching her 12" CRT with monaural audio on a 3-1/2" internal speaker.
> 
> What can I say? She claims to have compared them side-by-side.


I dunno. Maybe there is some truth the idea than men are more visually (and perhaps audioly?) oriented than women.


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

Dancar said:


> I dunno. Maybe there is some truth the idea than men are more visually (and perhaps audioly?) oriented than women.


I wouldn't say that. My wife notices the difference. For instance she agrees that Blu-ray is *MUCH* better than SD DVD's.

However... I think the point is... *MOST* women (not all) simply don't care. My wife for instance doesn't really care if she watches a movie in blu-ray or SD DVD as long as she can watch it!

TGC


----------



## pilotbob (Nov 8, 2007)

Dancar said:


> When we first got our 46" Sony and connected our TiVo to it, it was awful. This would be at a viewing distance of about 10 feet, in the same position as the 29" Philips/Magnaxov is replaced (about 9 years old).
> 
> HDTV's seem to come with the sharpness setting optimized for HD, which I would think could be sharpened more than SD without creating artifacts. Our 46" LDC made all of the TiVo Series I artifacts larger and more visible with the greater sharpness.


That's not the case at all. First you went from a 29 inch TV to a 46inch TV... so the image size has increased by quite a bit, what 50% bigger maybe. HD is "sharper" because there is more information in the image. Well, of course that is the whole point of HD.

So just like a picture the bigger you blow it up the less "definition" it will have... that is why you can blow up a 8 megpixel photograph much bigger than a 3 megapixel photo. The paper and printer are exactly the same but the 3mp photo will not be as sharp and clear. At say 6inch photo size they will probably look pretty much the same. But, blow it up to poster size and you will notice the difference. The same thing occurs when you watch an SD source on a very large screen.

If you got a 29 inch HD TV and show an SD show at 4:3 you will see the same (or maybe better) sharpness as you did with your SD TV. Although CRTs do have much better color reproduction than most mid range LCD screens.

BOb


----------



## Dancar (Oct 8, 2001)

pilotbob said:


> If you got a 29 inch HD TV and show an SD show at 4:3 you will see the same (or maybe better) sharpness as you did with your SD TV. Although CRTs do have much better color reproduction than most mid range LCD screens.


My point is that sharpness isn't always good, especially when it exposes artifacts previously made less visible by a softer picture. My other point is that bigger isn't always better. Remember the projection big screen TVs of the 80s and 90s? They were OK for a big area like a pool hall, but I was always unimpressed by them in cozy living rooms.

OTOH, SD shown on a digital HD channel on a large flat panel looks pretty good. Because the signal passes digitally through most of the equipment on the way to your TV, there is little degradation and few artifacts for the set to magnify.


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

Dancar said:


> My other point is that bigger isn't always better. Remember the projection big screen TVs of the 80s and 90s? They were OK for a big area like a pool hall, but I was always unimpressed by them in cozy living rooms.


TV size & Room size are important. Doesn't matter if it's a SD or HD TV.

The Rule of thumb is you want to view your screen 3x the size of the screen.

In other words.... a 60" TV was *NOT* designed to be viewed 6 feet from the set. A 60" TV was designed to have an average viewing distance of 
15' (3x5').

Thing is most people don't always follow that rule for many different reasons. Some people can't afford a 60' TV even when they *HAVE* to sit 15' away. On the same note. I have a not to wise friend who has a 60" set and yet sits 6' away from it!

Same thing goes for the new *120 FOOT *HDTV that the Dallas Cowboys have put in at their *NEW* stadium. If you tried watching that at 6' all you would see are the actual pixels!

I have a 65" Plasma. I love it. Then again I sit about 16' away. There are a few chairs that are like 8' away from it & are at about 90 degree viewing angle on it. Suffice it to say. I do *NOT* like sitting there to watch TV.

I think alot of people are forgetting what *TWO* things actually make the biggest difference on PQ for a HDTV.

1. Resolution 720p/1080i/p
2. Bitrate

It's the *BITRATE* that makes BLU-RAY PQ so much better than what you can get via OTA/CABLE/SAT.

TV Channels/stations not only vary between using 720p and 1080i, their BITRATES also vary. Even from local to local on the same network. Such as CBS. PQ on the DALLAS LOCAL CBS is much better I think than the PQ from the OKLAHOMA CITY LOCAL CBS station.

In all honesty. As much as we would like to compare PQ with everyone else. It's really impossible to do so. Cable/sat companies, TV stations, & our TV's all play a part in how good our PQ will be.

Thats why, when I shop for a new HDTV, I take my favorite (Family rated) blu-ray disk to the store & compare the SAME BLU-RAY on all the TV's I am interested in. Not always easy to do.

TGC


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

> TV size & Room size are important. Doesn't matter if it's a SD or HD TV.


Absolutely true - the problem is there is an inverse relationship to the pictures perceived quality when it comes to SD & HD content and screen size. As an example on my 50 inch plasma HD content has an optimal perceived quality at around 7 feet and for SD content it is around 12 feet. Or at 7 feet if I move back HD content's perceived quality decreases and SD content's perceived quality increases where at 12 feet if I move forward HD content's perceived quality increases and SD content's perceived quality decreases.

And of course each persons eyes will change things too -

Thanks,


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

TexasGrillChef said:


> TV size & Room size are important. Doesn't matter if it's a SD or HD TV.
> 
> The Rule of thumb is you want to view your screen 3x the size of the screen.


THX standard is actually 2.5X screen diagonal, but most people agree with the 3X.



> I have a 65" Plasma. I love it. Then again I sit about 16' away. There are a few chairs that are like 8' away from it & are at about 90 degree viewing angle on it. Suffice it to say. I do NOT like sitting there to watch TV.


I wouldn't like to sit 90 degrees with any TV. You'd be viewing parallel to the screen and couldn't see over the bezel. I assume you meant 45 degrees.

BTW, 16 feet from a 65" plasma puts most people at a range where they wouldn't notice the difference between 720p and 1080p.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

I sit 9feet away from my 67" set. I could easily sit 9 feet away from a 73" set. But most of what I watch is also HD. If I watched mostly SD that would be too close for a crappy SD picture.


----------



## ciper (Nov 4, 2004)

lrhorer said:


> It can depend upon a number of factors, including how well the two sets are adjusted. If the signal is high quality and free of artifacts, and if the two sets are both properly adjusted, the picture should look very much the same.


I don't agree that they should look the same. The electronics in even the nicer plasma/lcd are not doing a good enough job of upconverting the SD image to the panels resolution.

I have a calibrated *HD CRT* and it blows the doors off every plasma/lcd i have demo'd, even my XBR6 which is also calibrated. I have yet to see a plasma or LCD which can match the quality of a 40xbr800 or 34XBR960 with SD signals,,, not to mention the delicious black levels 

More specifically - SD video game consoles (essentially anything but the XBOX or PS3) look significantly better on a CRT. There are some LCD/Plasma that can look good but the signal processing that made it possible introduces lag which makes the game unplayable.

-sad that CRT's are dying-


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

The Sony 40XBR800 was probably the best quality picture TV set made (especially when it was calibrated). But at $3000 (in 2002), 300 pounds and 4x3 aspect ratio screen it wouldn't find much of a market today. I think most people would rather put that $3000 into a 50 inch Pioneer FD series today.


----------



## ciper (Nov 4, 2004)

jrm01 said:


> The Sony 40XBR800 was probably the best quality picture TV set made (especially when it was calibrated). But at $3000 (in 2002), 300 pounds and 4x3 aspect ratio screen it wouldn't find much of a market today. I think most people would rather put that $3000 into a 50 inch Pioneer FD series today.


The 34XBR960 was 16:9 and was essentially the same technology. If the price and weight/size weren't such an issue we would still have CRTs,,, and they would be even better than the current high end HDTVs.

I am also disappointed that SED TVs aren't available. I tried my best not to buy LCD/Plasma for the longest time hoping to get SED and finally gave up.


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

SED lost momentum due to law suits against Canon. They may continue efforts now that the Supreme Court ruled in their favor. The only problem now is that Canon doesn't have great financial condition to aggressively pursue this. Maybe FED or OLED will take it's place.


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

jrm01 said:


> THX standard is actually 2.5X screen diagonal, but most people agree with the 3X.
> 
> I wouldn't like to sit 90 degrees with any TV. You'd be viewing parallel to the screen and couldn't see over the bezel. I assume you meant 45 degrees.
> 
> BTW, 16 feet from a 65" plasma puts most people at a range where they wouldn't notice the difference between 720p and 1080p.


True 2.5x is used as well. Most retails stores use 3x because 3x is easier to figure in the head then 2.5x.

LOL you are correct. I meant at about 45 degrees. maybe a little more like 60 I think. My Plasma has a veiwing angle as stated in the specs of 165 degrees.

For me the difference between 720p and 1080p that I can tell really depends on the content & bitrate as well.

Example... "Bones", "24", "Prison Break" on Fox.. Broadcast at 720p and "LOST", broadcast on NBC at 1080i.

The colour and sharpness & detail are to me alot better on "LOST" then they are on "Bones", "24", or "Prison Break"

However, on some BLU-RAY movies when I have compared the same movie on 720p and 1080p I have noticed *LITTLE* difference. Yet on a movie such as "WALL-E" I *DID* notice a *BIG* difference between 720p and 1080p.

But like I also said, my wife who can see the difference doesnt' really care either. As long as she can see it! lol

TGC


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

TexasGrillChef said:


> ...
> 
> Besides that... what I keep asking is what happend to the 15 BILLION dollars that AT&T and Verizon paid for the new bandwidth?


the same place everyones social security taxes have gone for hte last 70 years- into the general fund to be wasted on pork and inefficiency.


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

TexasGrillChef said:


> It's the *BITRATE* that makes BLU-RAY PQ so much better than what you can get via OTA/CABLE/SAT.


It is also due to the fact that the content is 1080p rather than 720p/1080i being upconverted and/or de-interlaced.


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

TexasGrillChef said:


> The colour ......................
> TGC


That doesn't sound like a Texas accent.


----------



## ciper (Nov 4, 2004)

jrm01 said:


> That doesn't sound like a Texas accent.


HAHAHAHA :up:


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

jrm01 said:


> That doesn't sound like a Texas accent.


Some call it a Brixas accent... 

TGC


----------



## tootal2 (Oct 14, 2005)

Do people really use the 40.00 dtv card and then return the dtv box and get 40.00 cash?


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

tootal2 said:


> Do people really use the 40.00 dtv card and then return the dtv box and get 40.00 cash?


Depends on where they go to and if they do it right.

I was at Best Buy last week when someone tried to do that. They would only let him exchange the unit for another one, since the receipt showed he used a goverment card. Then again. The unit he bought only cost him $5 extra ($45). After much argument she did say she would give him a refund, except the $40 would go back to the goverment. Suffice it to say he didn't like that either.

Now I am sure there are other companies that aren't so honest like the customer & are giving out $40 gift cards for the store.

However, if you bought it at Circuit City in the going out of business sale there aren't any refunds anyways!

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

jrm01 said:


> It is also due to the fact that the content is 1080p rather than 720p/1080i being upconverted and/or de-interlaced.


Actually... there are MANY factors that are making the Blu-ray better than OTA/Cable/Sat. However, bitrate is probably one of the most important.

"Lost" for instance is being produced with the intentions of maintaining the *HIGHEST* quality from Camera to broadcast/Blu-ray.

Point being.... That *NOT ALL HD IS THE SAME!* There *ARE* very many different levels of quality for an HD program.

TGC


----------



## LoREvanescence (Jun 19, 2007)

tootal2 said:


> Do people really use the 40.00 dtv card and then return the dtv box and get 40.00 cash?


Many places will not give a full cash refund. For example if you bought a $49.99 DTV Box and used a $40 coupon, you can only get an exchange or a refund of $9.99 plus tax on the $9.99.

I have seen a lot of very angry people as well because they want a full refund including the $40 from the coupon. They don't come right out and tell you thats why they bought the converter box, but I can't imagine there are so many people this confused that all of these return attempts are legitimate excuses. Especially when nearly everyone that attempts a return wants the cash back of their coupon as well but then again there are a lot of very uninformed people out there.

I currently work in retail and this is what we see a lot of.

"I bought the digital converter box for my Comcast cable and it didn't work. Comcast said I don't need it and should return it for a full refund"

"We already have an HDTV and didn't know it was DTV Capable"


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

The coupon program as defined by the government requires retailers to refund to the purchaser only the cash paid and then to report the refund to the government, along with the $40 that was paid by the government. There is no (legal) leeway.


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

jrm01 said:


> The coupon program as defined by the government requires retailers to refund to the purchaser only the cash paid and then to report the refund to the government, along with the $40 that was paid by the government. There is no (legal) leeway.


Yes that is true. But as we all know. There are some retailers who aren't that honest *OR *informed about the proper procedure. Just as their aren't informed consumers about the DTV switchover.

Then again there are consumers out there that just aren't very bright & don't have the common sense to figure some things out on their own. ie they can't think for themselvs. Just as we have stupid CSR's and sales people. LOL! 

Which probably also explains why there are so many of these DTV conversion boxes on EBAY for sale as well!

TGC


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Looks like it will be a done deal next week. Now that the Senate voted and passed on the bill that failed in the Houes. The house can vote on it again next week and only needs a majority vote to pass. Unlike initially when it needed a two thirds majority.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/29/AR2009012904496.html



> Senate Once Again Passes Bill to Delay Transition to Digital TV
> 
> By Kim Hart
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> ...


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

> In a statement, a White House spokeswoman urged the House to move quickly to pass the bill, and that the administration "will work with Congress to improve the information and assistance available to Americans as the nation moves to digital television."


I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

is that the bill that made it voluntary? or not?


----------



## SCSIRAID (Feb 2, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> is that the bill that made it voluntary? or not?


I sure hope so......


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

I'd think the republicans wouldn't have went along unamimously again without the voluntary provision that got them to go along the first time. But the article seems to be worded that it was the house version that the senate just passed.


> By passing the bill that failed in the House,


if it is voluntary and they pass it just a couple weeks before that very few stations would change their plans. Even if they wanted to- it's really last minute to go to plan B smoothly.


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

jrm01 said:


> I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.


Find my freinds a job then. Now that they will be laying off people for the next 4 months because of this delay then.

Provide me with extra money to pay for the increased Television advertising because the locals have to keep broadcasting both analog and digital for an extra 4 months. Meaning higher advertising costs.

Much better for 6.5 million people to be without TV's then it is to lay off 1000 people.

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> I'd think the republicans wouldn't have went along unamimously again without the voluntary provision that got them to go along the first time. But the article seems to be worded that it was the house version that the senate just passed.
> 
> if it is voluntary and they pass it just a couple weeks before that very few stations would change their plans. Even if they wanted to- it's really last minute to go to plan B smoothly.


After contacting a few people in places that maybe.

*ALL TV STATIONS* in the following cities... will *DELAY *their transition to Digital and maintain their analog transmiting towers until the new Delay:

Dallas
Houston
El Paso
Oklahoma City
Amarillo
Albuquerque
San Antonio
Austin

Those are just to name a few, Those only apply to CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, CW, PBS.

There maybe more cities &/or stations that will delay their transition if they are allowed too.

TGC


----------



## SCSIRAID (Feb 2, 2003)

TexasGrillChef said:


> After contacting a few people in places that maybe.
> 
> *ALL TV STATIONS* in the following cities... will *DELAY *their transition to Digital and maintain their analog transmiting towers until the new Delay:
> 
> ...


Did they give reasons why?

I would expect that the stations that might delay would be those that are moving digital back to their original analog channel. Others could go ahead and move unless the FCC says no due to interference.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

This is just one more in a very long list of examples of how utterly stupid our elected officials are. I don't know why anyone is surprised.


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

TexasGrillChef said:


> There maybe more cities &/or stations that will delay their transition if they are allowed too.
> 
> TGC


Under the bill, they'll all be allowed to. I imagine it is due to pressure from the networks to prevent them from losing six percent of their market overnight. Remember that the major networks only have 40% of the market share for cable customers, but 95% of the OTA market.

The last count that I saw was that of the 1700 stations, 80 had already cut-off their analog (city in No. Carolina, New Orleans, Hawaii and several emergency grants). If (when) this bill is signed I would bet that less than another 100 would pull the plug voluntarily.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

It depends on how much extra money they want to spend. It is not in their budgets to run analog and digital past February 17th. So that money has to come from somewhere.


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

SCSIRAID said:


> Did they give reasons why?
> 
> I would expect that the stations that might delay would be those that are moving digital back to their original analog channel. Others could go ahead and move unless the FCC says no due to interference.


They are doing so, so that they can maintain a portion of those 6.5 million households that don't have digital capability as their viewers.

They don't wish to lose their viewership.

Here in dallas, it is estimated that abotu 15% of our cities poplulation AREN'T digital ready. They don't want to lose that 15%

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

aaronwt said:


> It depends on how much extra money they want to spend. It is not in their budgets to run analog and digital past February 17th. So that money has to come from somewhere.


The Money comes from Higher Advertising costs, & Temporarily from the budget that they used for disasembly of their analog towers & equipment

TGC


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

TexasGrillChef said:


> The Money comes from Higher Advertising costs, & Temporarily from the budget that they used for disasembly of their analog towers & equipment
> 
> TGC


But with the recession, advertising dollars are already lower.
I figure there will just be more layoffs. Two or three of the TV stations in the DC area had a round of layoffs recently. They either got rid of their job or told them to take a huge pay cut or leave.

There wil be alot of new faces on the TV stations around here.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

jrm01 said:


> Under the bill, they'll all be allowed to. I imagine it is due to pressure from the networks to prevent them from losing six percent of their market overnight. Remember that the major networks only have 40% of the market share for cable customers, but 95% of the OTA market.
> 
> The last count that I saw was that of the 1700 stations, 80 had already cut-off their analog (city in No. Carolina, New Orleans, Hawaii and several emergency grants). If (when) this bill is signed I would bet that less than another 100 would pull the plug voluntarily.


4 stations in my area are switching on Feb 17 regardless of the delay. Right now the economy doesn't afford these stations to keep both signals as they have already planned this in their budget.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

I'm curious what the bog O&O's would do...


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

It's not exactly related, but the mention above of stations in one area saying they would delay reminds me of a station message I saw over the weekend. I think it was on KTVU but I may be wrong. It said basically that after Feb 17th, some OTA viewers would not be able to receive the signal until June or July because they were using a temporary transmitter until then. It wasn't the whole 'they're broadcasting with lower power' issue that I know I have also seen. I don't see the info on their web site in a quick skim (though there is a whole bunch of other DTV info.. good).

To be clear -- even those with HD capable receiving equipment might not get the signal. So they delay might or might not help them -- maybe they could still get a (degraded) analog signal.


----------



## kibo (Nov 19, 2000)

Well, unless President Obama has a change of heart (not likely), the delay is going to happen


----------



## pilotbob (Nov 8, 2007)

kibo said:


> Well, unless President Obama has a change of heart (not likely), the delay is going to happen


Argh... however, since I decided to stay with FiOS for now it doesn't really affect me any more.

My question, if people weren't ready after 4 years of knowing when this was coming, what difference will 4 months really make?

BOb


----------



## hiker (Nov 29, 2001)

The fact is that some people, and we all know some of them, will put off getting ready for this until they have to. I bet come June that there are still about the same who are not ready, as Nielsen research suggests 5.7&#37;.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

> In a statement, National Association of Broadcasters President-CEO David Rehr praised the congressional action.
> 
> "We appreciate members of Congress for their leadership and swift action in ensuring viewers get continued access to free, over-the-air television," he said, adding that new public service messages promoting the new transition date would quickly be distributed to stations.


interesting that the NAB likes this. Maybe many stations will stay on...

But why rush to put out new PSA's with the later date? What are they going to say? - "never mind- go ahead and wait- we gave you slackers another 4 months."


----------



## a68oliver (Jul 15, 2000)

I found this report about who was not ready for the digital transition to be interesting and surprsing.

_The number of people totally unprepared for digital TV is concerning, but it is surprising who those people are. The youngest viewers - adults 35 and under - have done nothing. That's about 12 percent of that demographic. The Nielsen company found about seven percent of the 35 to 54 crowd unprepared as well. Among those 55 and older, less than three percent have procrastinated._

http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=9789058&nav=menu188_12

This goes against the convention wisdom of the poor and elderly being unprepared. It appears that the elderly are not as unprepared as previously thought.

I have presented a couple of DTV transition workshops to local senior citizen groups and found that they were certainly aware of the upcoming transition. Most people in the groups I spoke to were not affected because they had CATV. Almost all of the OTA people already had converter boxes or coupons. However, most were having problems getting signals. I also fear that some were confusing analog passthru with being digital ready.


----------



## akash2008 (Feb 5, 2009)

the networks until people have their vouchers, and there is availability of convertor boxes. Make the switch date two weeks after the last bunch of vouchers get mailed.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

kibo said:


> Well, unless President Obama has a change of heart (not likely), the delay is going to happen


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

I work part-time at Best Buy (<ducking the arrows>). I have been asking people who have come in to get the boxes during this past week why they waited so long. In virtually all cases the answer was the same.

"The TV that I need this for is my third (or fourth or fifth) TV in the guest bedroom (or office, or kitchen, even the garage) and if I wasn't able to use it for a few weeks (or months) it would be no big deal. I just wanted to wait and see if this was really going to happen as scheduled before I messed around with it."

There were a few cases (mostly elderly) who said that they wanted to wait until closer to the date since they couldn't use it until then (not true) and didn't want to mess with it until they had to. They were hoping that the government would change their mind (partially true).


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

jrm01 said:


> There were a few cases (mostly elderly) who said that they wanted to wait until closer to the date since they couldn't use it until then (not true) and didn't want to mess with it until they had to. They were hoping that the government would change their mind (partially true).


Partially true. In some areas digital stations are operating on reduced power and customers have a reason to wait until the deadline to switch. Some areas some people may have to re-aim their antenna after the final switch. It may make sense to wait so you only have to do a digital scan once, and re-orient the antenna once.

JMO but a weak analog station, some ghosting/static/grainy is more watachable then a weak digital station that cuts in and out/pixelates.


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

Yeah, there will be some last minute changes in many areas. Locally we have 8 readily available OTA channels and 7 of them have had their digital signal at full power for close to a year (or longer in some cases). But one of them has no digital signal yet since it is waiting for another local to abandon their analog frequency which they will then use for their digital signal.

I just don't think that's a valid reason to delay using the box, since APT will allow them to watch the analog channel until then. But that does provide another layer of complexity.


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

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
Undecided: CBN
CW - must wait for NBC local to give up their analog frequency

FCC says that 276 stations report that they will still switch on Feb. 17 (out of 1700).


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

lew said:


> Partially true. In some areas digital stations are operating on reduced power and customers have a reason to wait until the deadline to switch.


99% of OTA users will not even know what that means or even care. Most users do not keep up with OTA news like this.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

rainwater said:


> 99% of OTA users will not even know what that means or even care. Most users do not keep up with OTA news like this.


You think that 99% of OTA users can receive a low power signal?


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

Adam1115 said:


> You think that 99% of OTA users can receive a low power signal?


No, 99% of OTA users do not even know what a low power signal is. That is my point. In none of the ads I have seen do they suggest that after the transition digital stations will be operating at more power. While it is true in many cases, I don't think the average consumer even knows what that means. Especially the average OTA analog only consumer. My point is converter box purchasers aren't holding out for this when they do not know what it means and even if they did, they couldn't of even tested it without a converter box to begin with.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

rainwater said:


> No, 99% of OTA users do not even know what a low power signal is. That is my point. In none of the ads I have seen do they suggest that after the transition digital stations will be operating at more power. While it is true in many cases, I don't think the average consumer even knows what that means. Especially the average OTA analog only consumer. My point is converter box purchasers aren't holding out for this when they do not know what it means and even if they did, they couldn't of even tested it without a converter box to begin with.


Our local stations here are advertising that... "If you are unable to get our digital signal, wait until the cutover".


----------



## pilotbob (Nov 8, 2007)

Adam1115 said:


> Our local stations here are advertising that... "If you are unable to get our digital signal, wait until the cutover".


We have had one station streaming (captioning like marquee) something like "On Jan 15th we will cut our analog power....if your see picture degradation after that date you should change to receive our digital signal"

Since then it says something like..

"We reduced analog which will be shut off... switch to our digital channel... info phone number..."

Do people just ignore that stuff?

BOb


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

That's completely stupid. It's going to be fun. 



kibo said:


> Well, unless President Obama has a change of heart (not likely), the delay is going to happen


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

pilotbob said:


> Do people just ignore that stuff?


Of course they do. Like I said, most people do not care or understand that stuff.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

jrm01 said:


> 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
> ...


i'm curious if CW WANTS to wait or is being forced to wait. I'd also be curious if they want to move and aren't allowed becasue of NBC's actions if theres a legal remedy...


----------



## pilotbob (Nov 8, 2007)

Out local PBS affiliate just posted on their web site that the are still shutting down analog on Feb 17th... They don't have the budget to continue running it for another 4 months.

I say it again, this was a stupid decision. This isn't "the way forward" that I voted for.

BOb


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> i'm curious if CW WANTS to wait or is being forced to wait. I'd also be curious if they want to move and aren't allowed becasue of NBC's actions if theres a legal remedy...


Last year the FCC registered the channel frequencies for all the DTV stations. Our local CW had requested a frequency that was denied, then fumbled arround trying to change it, so eventually the FCC just assigned them this frequency (which is the analog NBC).

They have no choice now but to wait for it's availability.


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

How to vent your anger:

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/


----------



## ciper (Nov 4, 2004)

jrm01 said:


> 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
> ...


Argh. My head asplode. The 'delay' has succeeded in making everything worse.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

jrm01 said:


> How to vent your anger:
> 
> 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
> ...


Had my say. The gist of my message: SWITCH NOW!


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Though if he signs it, will that give funding so those of us with expired coupons get new ones? The official site does mention the bill, and says there isn't funding, but I'm not 100&#37; positive they mean that the bill delays WITHOUT changing the funding.


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

The official delay bill states that more coupons will be available as soon as Congress authorizes the funds. The economic stimulus bill is supposed to provide $500 million for this. I'm sure those coupons will help to create a largechunk of the 4 million new jobs promised!


----------



## 9300170 (Feb 21, 2003)

jrm01 said:


> How to vent your anger:
> 
> 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
> ...


I think that they really don't want any comment. I get the following error when I try to load the White House page:

XML Parsing Error: not well-formed
Location: http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing_room/dtv_delay_act/
Line Number 473, Column 53:

Of course, I'm on Linux and using Firefox. Does this link (or direct access to the page via the white house site) work for anyone?


----------



## ciper (Nov 4, 2004)

Works for me on XP SP3 with FF 3.06


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

and me with ole generic XP SP3 and IE 7.0


----------



## fred2 (Jan 20, 2006)

It worked for me with Vista Home Pre and Firefox 3.04 (hmm, I see that ciper has .06!)


----------



## msdonnelly (Apr 3, 2004)

Most people ignore one very pertinent question about the whole coupon business. Why do taxpayers have to subsidize anyone's ability to watch OTA TV? I live in an area where there is no OTA TV--you must have cable or satellite. Where is my $80 cable bill subsidy? Perhaps we need to start a campaign to have those of us without a need for them to get converter box coupons and sit on them, When they expire unused, we will have saved the taxpayers $80!


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

msdonnelly said:


> Most people ignore one very pertinent question about the whole coupon business. Why do taxpayers have to subsidize anyone's ability to watch OTA TV? I live in an area where there is no OTA TV--you must have cable or satellite. Where is my $80 cable bill subsidy? Perhaps we need to start a campaign to have those of us without a need for them to get converter box coupons and sit on them, When they expire unused, we will have saved the taxpayers $80!


While I agree with you that this program is a waste of taxpayer's dollars, your solution is mis-guided and would only result in more delays and confusion. The government (especially this government) is going to spend $1.5 billion dollars on this project no matter how long it takes.


----------



## tootal2 (Oct 14, 2005)

msdonnelly said:


> Most people ignore one very pertinent question about the whole coupon business. Why do taxpayers have to subsidize anyone's ability to watch OTA TV? I live in an area where there is no OTA TV--you must have cable or satellite. Where is my $80 cable bill subsidy? Perhaps we need to start a campaign to have those of us without a need for them to get converter box coupons and sit on them, When they expire unused, we will have saved the taxpayers $80!


I just signed up for one of those dtv coupons. Im going to use it on my s2 if i ever get rid of cable tv. My brother used one of those coupons for a converter box for his rv.


----------



## TooMuchTime (Jun 29, 2008)

> The government (especially this government) is going to spend $1.5 billion dollars on this project no matter how long it takes.


Well, if it doesn't matter how long it takes, then there's no way it will cost *only* $1.5 billion!


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

TooMuchTime said:


> Well, if it doesn't matter how long it takes, then there's no way it will cost *only* $1.5 billion!


Actually I can't see it costing much more since only 38.5 million TVs were affected. I can see many people getting the coupon even though they didn't need it, but can't see too many buying the box when it's not needed (some, but not many). Of course, our government could add 100% to the cost with administrative overhead.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Adam1115 said:


> You think that 99% of OTA users can receive a low power signal?


Well, yeah. Maybe not 99%, but certainly the vast majority, more than 95%. Remember, people are mostly clustered in cities, and if almost everyone in any large city will be able to receive the local channels. It's the people out in rural areas, mostly, who have problems with low power levels and being out of line-of-sight.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> Well, yeah. Maybe not 99%, but certainly the vast majority, more than 95%. Remember, people are mostly clustered in cities, and if almost everyone in any large city will be able to receive the local channels. It's the people out in rural areas, mostly, who have problems with low power levels and being out of line-of-sight.


95% != 99%.

Five percent of the population is a LOT of people.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

9300170 said:


> Of course, I'm on Linux and using Firefox. Does this link (or direct access to the page via the white house site) work for anyone?


It works fine for me under IceWeasel on Debian "Lenny" Linux and Firefox on XP Pro 64.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

Adam1115 said:


> 95% != 99%.
> 
> Five percent of the population is a LOT of people.


It would be if all of those people really used OTA as their primary means of watching tv.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

rainwater said:


> It would be if all of those people really used OTA as their primary means of watching tv.


HUH?? 

If all of the people who can't get OTA got OTA there would be a lot of people using OTA??

Wasn't that my point?


----------



## ciper (Nov 4, 2004)

fred2 said:


> It worked for me with Vista Home Pre and Firefox 3.04 (hmm, I see that ciper has .06!)


It also works on 3.1 beta 2 which has that kick ass uber fast JavaScript engine.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

msdonnelly said:


> Most people ignore one very pertinent question about the whole coupon business. Why do taxpayers have to subsidize anyone's ability to watch OTA TV? I live in an area where there is no OTA TV--you must have cable or satellite. Where is my $80 cable bill subsidy? Perhaps we need to start a campaign to have those of us without a need for them to get converter box coupons and sit on them, When they expire unused, we will have saved the taxpayers $80!


tv some how became a right...


----------



## vstone (May 11, 2002)

1. In this country, almost any benefit, once provided, is a right. The politicians are afraid to tell the citizenry that sometimes you have to pay for something.

2. There was a fight over the size of the coupon package when it was originally passed. Just last fall FFCC Chair Martin said we needed more money. They could easily have handled this while busy ignoring other issues like a national budget if they (self censored).

3. As long as we're in the stimulus business, why don't they allow a $40 credit towards a new TV as well as $40 towards another box?


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> tv some how became a right...


In fairness, the citizenry are paying a huge amount of money to the tune of several hundred tio several thousand dollars a year each for OTA service, so yes, in fact they are entitled to expect the service be available to them. I see no reason the people - via the government - should be required to cough up the money, though. Instead, they should force the national networks to fork over the cash, or be shut down.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

vstone said:


> 1. In this country, almost any benefit, once provided, is a right. The politicians are afraid to tell the citizenry that sometimes you have to pay for something.


That's the thing. They already are. The national broadcast networks milk the public of over $600 billion a year.


----------



## Rowsdower (Dec 11, 2002)

msdonnelly said:


> Most people ignore one very pertinent question about the whole coupon business. Why do taxpayers have to subsidize anyone's ability to watch OTA TV?


They don't. The program's funding is drawn from the $19.6 billion generated when a portion of the broadcast spectrum currently used for analog television was auctioned.



> I live in an area where there is no OTA TV--you must have cable or satellite.


You still stand to benefit from the new services that soon will occupy the auctioned portion of the broadcast spectrum.



> Perhaps we need to start a campaign to have those of us without a need for them to get converter box coupons and sit on them, When they expire unused, we will have saved the taxpayers $80!


...except for the fact that the program isn't taxpayer-funded.



MichaelK said:


> tv some how became a right...


The airwaves belong to the public (a principle that predates television), and the public has a right to not have its airwaves reassigned in a detrimental manner.


----------



## Dmon4u (Jul 15, 2000)

http://www.mediabiz.com/news/articles/?edit_id=11031

"According to a list made public this afternoon by the FCC, a total of 491 TV stations have informed the agency that they want to go ahead with the digital television transition on Feb. 17 as planned. That's on top of the 190 stations that have already switched or will have gone digital by Feb. 17."

Lists: 
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-221A3.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-221A5.pdf


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Rowsdower said:


> ...
> 
> The airwaves belong to the public (a principle that predates television), and the public has a right to not have its airwaves reassigned in a detrimental manner.


not to start a complete pissing match- but where would I find such a right spelled out?

All the time things get repurposed- who'd to argue that selling the spectrum off for billions of dollars and getting newer services on it isn't not a detrimental use but perhaps even a positive use of a valuable public resource?

just becaue things change dont make then detrimental.

Is it better for society to alot valubale resources to X or to assign them to Y? If Y is more valuable then changing from X is not in and of itself evil.


----------



## Rowsdower (Dec 11, 2002)

MichaelK said:


> not to start a complete pissing match- but where would I find such a right spelled out?


In the United States, there's a longstanding principle that the public airwaves must be used to serve the public interest. It's common sense that rendering millions of households' television equipment useless is not in the public interest, and the United States Congress obviously agrees.



> All the time things get repurposed- who'd to argue that selling the spectrum off for billions of dollars and getting newer services on it isn't not a detrimental use but perhaps even a positive use of a valuable public resource?


I _do_ believe that the reassignment (not sale) of these frequencies is a positive use of a valuable public resource, provided that a relatively small portion of the $19.6 billion generated via the auction is used to provide analog OTA television viewers an inexpensive path to digital OTA signal reception. And that's exactly what's being done.



> just becaue things change dont make then detrimental.


Agreed. But simply withdrawing frequencies from their decades-old use and pocketing all of the money (instead of using some of it to aid the public in the transition) would be to millions of people's detriment.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Rowsdower said:


> In the United States, there's a longstanding principle that the public airwaves must be used to serve the public interest. It's common sense that rendering millions of households' television equipment useless is not in the public interest, and the United States Congress obviously agrees.


It's not like the pubic can receive what's transmitted on the "public airwaves" without some sort of receiver now, which isn't free. And a $40 receiver is within reach of most anyone who currently has a television and the electricity to operate it. There's also been a lengthy transition period, so this isn't something that is happening overnight with no notice.

This is simply Congress pandering for votes. Again.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Rowsdower said:


> In the United States, there's a longstanding principle that the public airwaves must be used to serve the public interest. It's common sense that rendering millions of households' television equipment useless is not in the public interest, and the United States Congress obviously agrees.
> 
> I _do_ believe that the reassignment (not sale) of these frequencies is a positive use of a valuable public resource, provided that a relatively small portion of the $19.6 billion generated via the auction is used to provide analog OTA television viewers an inexpensive path to digital OTA signal reception. And that's exactly what's being done.
> 
> Agreed. But simply withdrawing frequencies from their decades-old use and pocketing all of the money (instead of using some of it to aid the public in the transition) would be to millions of people's detriment.


OK - so it's a longstanding principle AND commons sense- I'll completely give you that- I'd agree with both entirely. But everyone calls eveyrthing a "right" now a days and that's not the case. the right to be a jerk, the right to annoy your neighbors, blah blah blah- there's not all that many rights we have... (many are very broad- but there isn't a right to everything that we expect to make us happy now a days)

and i do actually completely agree it's the right (as in correct) thing to do to fund the stupid convertere boxes from the proceeds of the sale. To me, both the executive and legislative branches were negligent in letting funds run so low a waiting list was needed. Apparently a child who did the math would have seen the coupon fund was going to run out way early. Yet there was no bill passed by congress to increase the fund. How's the executive branch supposed to fund the program when the LAW that congress passed had no more money. The exectuive branch shold have pushed the issue publicly to get the congress to act. It's idiotic- BOTH parties.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

dswallow said:


> It's not like the pubic can receive what's transmitted on the "public airwaves" without some sort of receiver now, which isn't free. And a $40 receiver is within reach of most anyone who currently has a television and the electricity to operate it. There's also been a lengthy transition period, so this isn't something that is happening overnight with no notice.
> 
> This is simply Congress pandering for votes. Again.


This is what drives me batty the past year- is all the pols pandering like morons over small amounts of money.

First 20 bucks more a week for gasoline is horrible. Then 10 dollars more a week in your pay from lower taxes is pointless because it isnt a lot of money to really matter. Now $40 one time is too much to bear.

To me all 3 of those things are roughly in the same category of money. So is it a lot or is it nothing? I dont know the answer myself. But I HATE that the pandering morons in Washington like it both ways.


----------



## Dancar (Oct 8, 2001)

dswallow said:


> It's not like the pubic can receive what's transmitted on the "public airwaves" without some sort of receiver now, which isn't free. And a $40 receiver is within reach of most anyone who currently has a television and the electricity to operate it. There's also been a lengthy transition period, so this isn't something that is happening overnight with no notice.
> 
> This is simply Congress pandering for votes. Again.


If you don't have a TV and want to buy one, there's no government subsidy.

If you live in an area with no OTA reception, there's no government subsidy for cable or satillite.

If your TV dies, there's no government subsidy for a new one.

If you'd prefer to upgrade a brand new TV instead of putting a converter box on your old one, there's no government help.

Television is not a life-critical service like electricity or telephone.

So I agree with you that the $40 coupon program is purely for politics.


----------



## sgndave (Jan 16, 2002)

Back to the original topic of this thread -

Obama signed the DTV transition delay bill today, so it's now in effect. It remains to be seen how many stations will be allowed by the FCC to shut off analog prior to June 12. One news article reported that a few hundred stations have asked for permission to shut off analog on or before Feb 17.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

sgndave said:


> Back to the original topic of this thread -
> 
> Obama signed the DTV transition delay bill today, so it's now in effect. It remains to be seen how many stations will be allowed by the FCC to shut off analog prior to June 12. One news article reported that a few hundred stations have asked for permission to shut off analog on or before Feb 17.


It is already known exactly which stations got approval to shut off early. It was around 1/3 of the total stations.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

sgndave said:


> One news article reported that a few hundred stations have asked for permission to shut off analog on or before Feb 17.


http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=7062502#post7062502

491 have asked, in addition to 190 that have already or will have done so before February 17.


----------



## ciper (Nov 4, 2004)

Dmon4u said:


> http://www.mediabiz.com/news/articles/?edit_id=11031
> 
> "According to a list made public this afternoon by the FCC, a total of 491 TV stations have informed the agency that they want to go ahead with the digital television transition on Feb. 17 as planned. That's on top of the 190 stations that have already switched or will have gone digital by Feb. 17."


How many total stations are there?!


----------



## sgndave (Jan 16, 2002)

rainwater said:


> It is already known exactly which stations got approval to shut off early. It was around 1/3 of the total stations.


Do you have to a link a list of the those who got approval? The only list I've seen (link provided by Doug, above) was the list of those who asked and were waiting for the FCC to respond. The news items I have read quoted the FCC as saying that they had not yet responded back to the stations, but that they would process the requests as soon as possible.


----------



## sgndave (Jan 16, 2002)

Dmon4u said:


> http://www.mediabiz.com/news/articles/?edit_id=11031
> 
> "According to a list made public this afternoon by the FCC, a total of 491 TV stations have informed the agency that they want to go ahead with the digital television transition on Feb. 17 as planned. That's on top of the 190 stations that have already switched or will have gone digital by Feb. 17."
> 
> ...


Per that same news article, dated this afternoon, "The FCC has not yet said how many stations it will allow to transition on the February date if the delay bill becomes law."


----------



## sgndave (Jan 16, 2002)

ciper said:


> How many total stations are there?!


http://wap.cbsnews.com/siteserver/site?sid=cbsnews&pid=article.detail&feedId=SCITECH&guid=4791366&articleTitle=25%25%20Of%20TV%20Stations%20Stay%20With%20Digital%20Plans&tcid=QWC1913e880479c4a52a804ae33e5a278fa

According to this article, there are 1796 stations. This article also suggests that the FCC has not approved all of the shutdowns.

"The Federal Communications Commission said Tuesday that 491 of the 1,796 full-power TV stations in the country say they intend to keep the Feb. 17 date. The FCC has reserved the right to deny individual stations an early shutdown. "


----------



## sgndave (Jan 16, 2002)

Sorry for the multiple posts, but I just found this document from the FCC on their DTV website, where they published the list of stations requesting analog termination on Feb 17:

Website: http://www.dtv.gov/inthenews.html

Document: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-221A1.doc

From the document:

"We remind stations that intend to terminate analog operations on February 17, 2009 that consistent with their public interest responsibilities and Congress delay of the transition to June 12 to give consumers additional time to prepare, the Commission has reserved the right to limit or reconsider the partial waiver of the Third Periodic Review Report & Orders early termination procedures granted in the February 5 Public Notice in the event that the Commission determines that analog termination on February 17 by a station or group of stations is contrary to the public interest. In such event, the Commission will promptly notify the affected station or stations."

So it looks like the stations can go ahead and shut down unless the FCC tells them otherwise.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

sgndave said:


> Per that same news article, dated this afternoon, "The FCC has not yet said how many stations it will allow to transition on the February date if the delay bill becomes law."


The main reason they would disallow such a request is if the new channel the station is moving to is going to interfere with a nearby market. However, these stations already know of this issue, so I'm sure they have either coordinated with the other station or they are going to hold off on the transition.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Let's see how confused we can make the consumer.
Delaying was a terrible plan and will be a waste of even more money.


----------



## Dancar (Oct 8, 2001)

Most commercial stations would keep analog on for as long as possible because their advertising rates are based on the number of people watching. You don't want to suddendly cut your numbers by 5 percent, especially if the competition is still broadcasting analog and the viewers you lose will move there.

From a quick look at that list, it looks like the only stations in my area cutting over on 2/17 will be the non-profit educational stations. They'd prefer the cost savings sooner rather than later and their fund raising is not directly affected by ratings.


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

sgndave said:


> Obama signed the DTV transition delay bill today, so it's now in effect.


Finally! Now our government can take up less important issues that have had to take a backseat to this DTV crisis. Things like figuring how to spend $2.0 trillion to save the banks and $800 billion to stimulate the economy (also known as Plans On Recovering Kwickly = PORK).


----------



## vstone (May 11, 2002)

MichaelK said:


> OK - so it's a longstanding principle AND commons sense- I'll completely give you that- I'd agree with both entirely. But everyone calls eveyrthing a "right" now a days and that's not the case. the right to be a jerk, the right to annoy your neighbors, blah blah blah- there's not all that many rights we have... (many are very broad- but there isn't a right to everything that we expect to make us happy now a days)
> 
> and i do actually completely agree it's the right (as in correct) thing to do to fund the stupid convertere boxes from the proceeds of the sale. To me, both the executive and legislative branches were negligent in letting funds run so low a waiting list was needed. Apparently a child who did the math would have seen the coupon fund was going to run out way early. Yet there was no bill passed by congress to increase the fund. How's the executive branch supposed to fund the program when the LAW that congress passed had no more money. The exectuive branch shold have pushed the issue publicly to get the congress to act. It's idiotic- BOTH parties.


Actaullay, FCC Chair Martin did tell Congress that he needed more money last fall. Congress had plenty of time in the Seesion after the election to do something. they did not.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

looks like all the big guns are going to stick around (at least from in NYC and Philly DMA's)


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

Tomorrow is the big day (now made much smaller). Here in Pittsburgh the "new" official "analog shut-off dates" (much better and more accurate term than digital-transition) are:

Feb 17 - FOX, MYTV and small PBS (mostly shopping networ)
Mar 17 - CB
Apr 01 - PBS
Jun 12 - CBS, NBC, ABC and CW

Our PBS had said it would change on Feb 17, but I guess they then remembered their fund-raising programming was early March, so they delayed a month.

Nielson report in January said 6.5 million nationwide still not ready. Now (Feb 5) it says that 5.8 million not ready. Some progress.

Interesting that locally they estimate that 2.56&#37; (29,000 homes) are not ready, but gave the following breakdown as who is ready:

African-American - 100%
Under 35 age group - 96.4%
35-54 age group - 96.89%
55 and older - 98.27%

So the younger age group is the least prepared. My guess is that many of them use their old TV primarily for DVDs or games and don't care about the converter box.


----------



## mathwhiz (May 28, 2000)

Tomorrow my NBC station will turn off analog and switch their DTV signal to their final channel (their analog channel) - we'll see how quick TiVo gets this right. I'm also hoping I pick up the signal OK on the new frequency. Then I get to this this again the next day for Ion, then again in June (or maybe before). Too bad this couldn't have been done all on one day. Oh wait - they were going to!


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

hmm... it will make things interesting for tivo and doing the correct guide data....

I'm NOT at all sure- I wonder if you do a channel scan and it pulls up the call letters if the tivo just automagically assigns the right guide data based on call letters alone?


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

MichaelK said:


> hmm... it will make things interesting for tivo and doing the correct guide data....
> 
> I'm NOT at all sure- I wonder if you do a channel scan and it pulls up the call letters if the tivo just automagically assigns the right guide data based on call letters alone?


The guide data links to the frequency. If the frequency changes, then the new channel after a scan will just show To Be Announced as the guide data afaik.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

that stinks...

looks to be a cluster **** for the next 4 months then.

Get ready for all the threads about how tivo sucks.


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

Maybe, maybe not. There are already 190 channels nationwide that have changed and there have only been a handful of problems reported. There will be quite a few problems, I'm sure, but I would hope it would be manageable.

We'll know more on Wednesday when another large batch (350+) make the change.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

jrm01 said:


> Maybe, maybe not. There are already 190 channels nationwide that have changed and there have only been a handful of problems reported. There will be quite a few problems, I'm sure, but I would hope it would be manageable.


Since the OTA channels/frequencies are all clearly defined by the FCC, I don't think it is as big a deal as cable channel changes. There will certainly be a lot of changes, but hopefully it isn't a major issue since the channel changes are clearly known to Tribune. There are some channel re-organizations happening at the same time (like for some PBS stations moving the main channel around), so I think those will be the main issues.


----------



## mathwhiz (May 28, 2000)

My local NBC station changed last night and did a scan this morning and the TiVo found the channel on the new frequency - but no guide data. I have 10.1 and 10.2 listed twice once with the old frequency and once with the new - I called and reported this to TiVo today - hope they make these changes quick (I know TiVo doesn't - it's Tribune) since I can't easily record anything from NBC now until it's fixed. Hopefully with the number of these changes coming up that they will put a priority in for them and would be nice if they could do them ahead of time somehow.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Another reason why everything should have changed at the same time.
I guess the good thing for me is in my area they are swicthing in June, after the Network TV season is over with.


----------

