I Just read this, it seems the Government thinks people are NOT ready for the transition from analog tv to digital so have changed it from Febuary,09 to the summer of 09.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090127/tv_nm/us_dtv_congress

This is a bad move in my opinion. The vast majority of those people who aren't ready now won't be ready on June 12th, 2009 or June 12th, 2010 for that matter.

I really don't see the point of delaying the switchover. Don't a majority of American households get their TV programming via cable or satellite, and are therefore unaffected by the transition to all-digital over-the-air broadcasting? And people with older analog TVs who still receive local stations over the air can buy a digital-to-analog signal converter, which seems like no big deal.

There will never be a point when "everyone" is ready. They just need to do it and let the waited-until-it-was-too-late people catch up. Some people are just too lazy to make a move until something stops working.

A news cameraman I know says this is a minor disaster - most stations have their budgets and schedules set for the the Feb date, and this move will probably lead to a number of layoffs.

A news cameraman I know says this is a minor disaster - most stations have their budgets and schedules set for the the Feb date, and this move will probably lead to a number of layoffs.

Exactly true. It'll cost broadcasters millions on top of the millions they have spent to be ready for this switch.

I really don't see the point of delaying the switchover. Don't a majority of American households get their TV programming via cable or satellite, and are therefore unaffected by the transition to all-digital over-the-air broadcasting? And people with older analog TVs who still receive local stations over the air can buy a digital-to-analog signal converter, which seems like no big deal.

Well, there are several problems that really need to be worked out before they actually switch this stuff over.
First, they ran out of coupons a while ago for the converter boxes, and their budget is gone.
So now there are tens of thousands of people on a waiting list for coupons waiting for money to become available for more coupons to be sent out.
A large portion of people got screwed on the coupon system anyway as it was very poorly thought out. They started sending coupons, with a 90 day expiration date, long before converter boxes were even available. So a huge chunk of those coupons went un-used and those people can't get more as they have already been issued coupons.
Now the goverment is even saying that there probably won't even be enough converter boxes to go around, as not enough have been produced.
It seems they greatly underestimated how many would be needed.
Thinking like so many others that everyone has access to cable and satelite, when in really many do not.
So, when no one could get the converter boxes, the coupons were plentiful and flowing.
Now that there are boxes on the market to get, there are no coupons.
Typical!


Also, they still have some big problems to work out with coverage.
It seems that digital signals do not carry quite as far as analog. As there are many cases turning up of people who had no problem getting analog signals but now that they have have the digital converter boxes, they cannot get their local stations anymore.
Seems that the digital signal is either all-or-nothing. If you cannot get perfect reception, you get no reception at all.
So, in areas like around here where I live. Where the closest major markets are 80-100 miles away. Most people cannot get any signals at all, even though they have been getting analog signals just fine for decades.

This whole thing is a complete mess.
They didn't think it through.
They didn't listen to those who had concerns.
And now it is all coming back to bite them big time.

In some of the test markets where they have already made the conversion to see how it worked, They have gotten thousands of complaints.
Imagine the flood they are in for when they go nation wide.

The digital conversion has been in the works for 10 years now. It was mandated by the Feds and the broadcast industry had no choice but to comply. "They" (the broadcast industry) most certainly did work things out. That the feds ran out of money for $40 coupons is a completely different issue. Yes, some people in remote areas and deep valleys will have to invest in rooftop antennas to get proper reception. And they'll have to do that no matter when the switch occurs. Delaying the switch is not the right answer.

Yes, some people in remote areas and deep valleys will have to invest in rooftop antennas to get proper reception. And they'll have to do that no matter when the switch occurs. Delaying the switch is not the right answer.

And if I was one of those people I would be raising holy heck.
Why should I have to shell out money I probably don't have because the government is forcing a change that most people didn't even want?
And I am sure that is what many are telling their politicians.
And you know what elected officials do when they are faced with large numbers of angry voters. They postpone things and hope the problems go away.

What they should be doing is putting up more transmission towers so the signals will carry farther and cover as well as analog does.

TV has been free in the USA for how many decades now?
Most americans view their ability to watch TV as a 'right'.
Even though you will never find it in the Bill of Rights, doesn't make it any less so in most peoples minds. This would be the same as telling them they have to start paying just to listen to the radio.

They don't have to "pay" any more than they did in 1957 when they had to go out and buy a rooftop antenna to get half-decent analog reception. I don't believe the government was providing rebates back then.

I'd like to think that we contributed to this mess in our own small way.
When the program was announced, we requested, and received, two coupons.
We went out and bought 2 converter boxes, investing about $20.00 of our own money (our part of the bailout of the technology industry).
Now, we actually receive our TV signal via cable, but do have analog TVs, and an antenna we could use "just in case".
So, our converter boxes are resting comfortably in their containers in the closet.
As, I might imagine, thousands of others are doing...

They don't have to "pay" any more than they did in 1957 when they had to go out and buy a rooftop antenna to get half-decent analog reception. I don't believe the government was providing rebates back then.For that matter, I don't ever remember the government issuing me a TV, either. I just paid $1200 for one, in fact.

Qapla'

SSB

i shudder to think whats going to happen in the inner city of detroit when the switch does happen.

They don't have to "pay" any more than they did in 1957 when they had to go out and buy a rooftop antenna to get half-decent analog reception. I don't believe the government was providing rebates back then.


Yeah, but they are receiving analog signals now.
But they cannot receive digital signals.
So because of this switch they either have to shell out a bunch of money for larger antennas (if that will even help) or not get TV at all.
So, yes, they will have to shell out big bucks just to be able to get what they have been getting free for many years.

And what is going to happen to those who just will not be able to get digital signals at all?

Yeah, but they are receiving analog signals now.
But they cannot receive digital signals.
So because of this switch they either have to shell out a bunch of money for larger antennas (if that will even help) or not get TV at all.
So, yes, they will have to shell out big bucks just to be able to get what they have been getting free for many years.

And what is going to happen to those who just will not be able to get digital signals at all?

Please provide us with some (informed) links showing where people will not be able to receive over-the-air digital signals if they use the proper set-up. One of the advantages of digital transmission is that the number of channels viewers receive will actually increase exponentially. As I said earlier, millions of people in the last 5 decades have had to invest in directional antennas to get decent analog reception (I was one of them).
So - by your definition - that improved television reception was no more "free" in the past than it is now.

I'm one Scott. Currently I recieve 8 or 9 analog signals. Every station has conducted tests of their digital broadcasts. So far I've recieved one, three channels (12, 12a, 12b) but still only one station. I hope it'll improve after the actual transition, but right now I'm left out in the cold figuratively speaking. I happen to live in a dead zone where the signals from the surrounding cities don't overlap. My brother lives about 3 miles away and he gets signals from three different markets, but not the one I get. So yeah, even though I know its kind of irrational, I feel screwed by the government for not getting "free" TV. I don't live in the sticks, I live less than 70 miles north of Detroit.

I'm one Scott. Currently I recieve 8 or 9 analog signals. Every station has conducted tests of their digital broadcasts. So far I've recieved one, three channels (12, 12a, 12b) but still only one station. I hope it'll improve after the actual transition, but right now I'm left out in the cold figuratively speaking. I happen to live in a dead zone where the signals from the surrounding cities don't overlap. My brother lives about 3 miles away and he gets signals from three different markets, but not the one I get. So yeah, even though I know its kind of irrational, I feel screwed by the government for not getting "free" TV. I don't live in the sticks, I live less than 70 miles north of Detroit.

Al - I don't think it's "irrational" not to want to spend money to get what you were getting for free before. Granted, this impending switch has no doubt been a boon to cable and satellite providers as well as the manufacturers of conversion boxes and directional antennas. But delaying the switch for another 5 months isn't going to do anything to improve your situation. That's my main point. And that switch is going to happen, regardless.*

*Apparently, the House just defeated the bill to delay DTV - so stay tuned. It will be interesting to come back to this thread after the switch (whenever it happens) to see how you (and others) are dealing with your reception issues - and how much it is costing you.

In the Cleveland Ohio area, the TV stations are not running the digital transmitters at full power, because they are still running the analog transmitters. when the analog transmitters are turned OFF the digital transmitters will go full power. WAIT till that happens.

In the Cleveland Ohio area, the TV stations are not running the digital transmitters at full power, because they are still running the analog transmitters. when the analog transmitters are turned OFF the digital transmitters will go full power. WAIT till that happens.

Another good point and a salient one.

Well as of today, the govt. has changed its mind and has decided to go forward with the original feb. 17th date.

we'll see how long the deadline sticks.I have a feeling we haven't heard the last of it yet.

No, you haven't heard the last of it. It's still up in the air politically. But February 17th, the drop-dead date toward which all broadcasters have been working for the last decade (at great monetary costs) - is less than 3 weeks away.

Everybody's geared toward the February 17th date. It has been advertised to the public for at least the past year - and heavily promoted for the last six months on every broadcast channel out there. How can anyone NOT know about it?

Shame on those procrastinators who put off getting coupons or checking their antennas and then howl at the last minute that they are not ready for the switch. I know some of them, and they have no excuse for it. If we wait until June, they will again put it off and then cry out all over again. They'll have to shell out - what...$50 or so without a coupon?

If you have elderly or disabled family members, or other relatives or friends who cannot take care of the switch themselves, why not see to it that they are provided with a tuner and/or an antenna?

The thing is, the Government can't be expected to come in and "save" everybody who hasn't made the effort to switch over. Better to make the switch on the given date, then deal with the ones that haven't done it. I bet that there will be a lot fewer than 6.5 million by the time Feb 17th rolls around.

I remember when I was a kid, we always had to put up our own antennas (big honking things) on our own just to get regular old TV. How is this really any different?

In the Cleveland Ohio area, the TV stations are not running the digital transmitters at full power, because they are still running the analog transmitters. when the analog transmitters are turned OFF the digital transmitters will go full power. WAIT till that happens.

I agree. We are not yet receiving some channels with the converter box. My wife is concerned, but I suggested we be patient. No need spending additional money for a roof top attenna until we know what the full power digital signal looks like.
(If the missing channels don't come back, I hope she doesn't make me go up on the roof in the dead of winter!! :o)

The thing is, the Government can't be expected to come in and "save" everybody who hasn't made the effort to switch over. Better to make the switch on the given date, then deal with the ones that haven't done it. I bet that there will be a lot fewer than 6.5 million by the time Feb 17th rolls around.

Amen!:thumbsup:

I remember when I was a kid, we always had to put up our own antennas (big honking things) on our own just to get regular old TV. How is this really any different?

I'm talking about people who already have roof top antennas.
They still can't get anything.
I've got one friend with an antenna on a 50' tower beside his house. He can't get squat with the converter box. No digital signal at all.
He can't put up a bigger tower. It's illegal. (heck, I think the one he has now would be illegal to errect today but it's been there for probably 30 years now)

I'm talking about people who already have roof top antennas.
They still can't get anything.
I've got one friend with an antenna on a 50' tower beside his house. He can't get squat with the converter box. No digital signal at all.
He can't put up a bigger tower. It's illegal. (heck, I think the one he has now would be illegal to errect today but it's been there for probably 30 years now)

I understand how frustrating that must be, but again, I don't see how delaying the transition is going to help improve that situation. It still seems to me like it'd be better to get the system fully up and running, THEN see what problems need to be dealt with.

In the Cleveland Ohio area, the TV stations are not running the digital transmitters at full power, because they are still running the analog transmitters. when the analog transmitters are turned OFF the digital transmitters will go full power. WAIT till that happens.

They're telling us that in South Florida too, and advising against installing rooftop antennas till after the switch since nobody knows for sure yet what kind of reception they'll receive. Since we hardly have any hills (much less mountains),conventional wisdom is a lot of folks won't need them.

I'm talking about people who already have roof top antennas.
They still can't get anything.
I've got one friend with an antenna on a 50' tower beside his house. He can't get squat with the converter box. No digital signal at all.
He can't put up a bigger tower. It's illegal. (heck, I think the one he has now would be illegal to errect today but it's been there for probably 30 years now)


First of all, if he's using a 30 year-old antenna - it very likely is VHF only. The vast majority of digital channels are UHF. It could also have to do with what type of cables he is using from the antenna. He may also have the converter box hooked up wrong. The best thing your friend can do is contact one of his local affiliates and ask for technical advice. I guarantee he is doing something wrong. And he may well have to spend a little money to do it right.

I have no doubt that the switch will come when it comes. MY question, and it's one I haven't yet heard a good answer for, is WHY? I'm sure that most of us have heard that the FCC wanted the switch so that they could sell the newly-unused bandwidth to the cell phone companies, but that doesn't make it right.

It seems to me that the "improved" quality of the digital signal is questionable at least, and those that care about that have mostly gone HD with satellite or HD cable. I have no use for HD, and I'm just fine with the quality of broadcast TV as it is. I have Dish Network because my local stations are weak where I live, and the cable company was pricing themselves out of my comfort zone. (They were also "stealing" channels for their new pricier "digital" service, thus making my service all the more expensive due to the rapidly reducing number of available channels.)

So, anybody got any better explanations? I'm open for some.

Larry

I think you mentioned the ultimate explanation in your post, LGFugate... that wonderful five letter word: MONEY.

Given the current mentality of big business and government, what other motivation could there be?

Oh, "money" has everything to do with it. The problem for over-the-air broadcasters is that it has basically been an unfunded mandate, requiring great expense to upgrade equipment and transmission facilities. Every broadcast station in the country has predicated their 2009 budget on shutting off analog transmission on Feb 17th, thereby saving tens of thousands of dollars in dual power and transmission costs. Now they are being told that they'll likely have to carry those expenses for another 5 months because a small minority of viewers aren't "ready". I seriously doubt 90% of those viewers are going to be any more ready in June, at which point the move will be made to delay the switch again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_television

http://www.dtvanswers.com/

http://www.dtv.gov/

First of all, if he's using a 30 year-old antenna - it very likely is VHF only. The vast majority of digital channels are UHF. It could also have to do with what type of cables he is using from the antenna. He may also have the converter box hooked up wrong. The best thing your friend can do is contact one of his local affiliates and ask for technical advice. I guarantee he is doing something wrong. And he may well have to spend a little money to do it right.

No. The tower is that old.
He actually had a new antenna installed last year after the ice storm wiped out the one he had.

He has contacted some of the local stations.
After a few troubleshooting questions from them, the answer from them was basically.
"I guess you are another one that is outside our broadcast range. Sorry."

Oh, "money" has everything to do with it. The problem for over-the-air broadcasters is that it has basically been an unfunded mandate, requiring great expense to upgrade equipment and transmission facilities. Every broadcast station in the country has predicated their 2009 budget on shutting off analog transmission on Feb 17th, thereby saving tens of thousands of dollars in dual power and transmission costs. Now they are being told that they'll have to carry those expenses for another 5 months because a small minority of viewers aren't "ready". I seriously doubt 90% of those viewers are going to be any more ready in June, at which point the move will be made to delay the switch again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_television

http://www.dtvanswers.com/

http://www.dtv.gov/

The delay isn't a done deal. It got voted down Wednesday and a new vote (http://www.app.com/article/20090130/BUSINESS/90130032/1003) may be held this coming week.

Even if it does pass it only allowed stations to continue broadcasting the old signal, it didn't require it. Those stations that can't afford to or see no benefit (read profit) in extending the old signals would still be able to pull the plug.

The delay isn't a done deal. It got voted down Wednesday and a new vote (http://www.app.com/article/20090130/BUSINESS/90130032/1003) may be held this coming week.

Even if it does pass it only allowed stations to continue broadcasting the old signal, it didn't require it. Those stations that can't afford to or see no benefit (read profit) in extending the old signals would still be able to pull the plug.

The house just voted for the delay, only one person voted against it.

The house just voted for the delay, only one person voted against it.

Of course. Well, it's not like Congress doesn't have better things to do.

Still it's not a mandate: stations may still pull the plug before June 12 if they wish. Before they were required to stop transmitting analog signals on 2/17.

The bill allows television stations to switch from analog to digital signals before the June 12 deadline if they are ready to do so. The vacated analog spectrum will be allocated to public safety services.

link (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10156931-38.html)

I bet most stations will continue broadcasting analog in addition to digital until 6/12 if they want to keep market share. Losing 5% of any market is huge.

This is bad.

Still it's not a mandate: stations may still pull the plug before June 12 if they wish. Before they were required to stop transmitting analog signals on 2/17.



link (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10156931-38.html)

I bet most stations will continue broadcasting analog in addition to digital until 6/12 if they want to keep market share. Losing 5% of any market is huge.

Exactly. Expect news of industry-wide layoffs in the broadcasting industry. And expect that by June 12th, that 5% number won't have changed by half a point.

Exactly. Expect news of industry-wide layoffs in the broadcasting industry. And expect that by June 12th, that 5% number won't have changed by half a point.

What kind of people can they afford to lay off? I would have thought they ran pretty tight as it is.

And expect that by June 12th, that 5% number won't have changed by half a point.


Yeah, I don't see the logic of this either. If you haven't prepared with years of warning of the exact date the switch was to occur......

Hard to believe the house and senate supported such a bone-headed obviously-wrong move........well, on second thought....

What kind of people can they afford to lay off? I would have thought they ran pretty tight as it is.

What kind of people can any industry afford to lay off? You cut to survive, however painful or debilitating it may be.

I suspect a major proponent for the delay are the stations themselves. A loss of 5% viewership due to "technical difficulties" caused by a government mandate is huge. Aren't advertising dollars linked to the number of viewers?

I just don't see a huge added cost keeping the infrastructure to transmit analog in place a few more months. Electricity? If it's labor, shutting down analog seems like it would result in layoffs more than delaying it.

The businesses that paid for the rights to frequency bands being vacated by analog TV are probably annoyed, but that isn't the existing TV broadcasters.

I suspect a major proponent for the delay are the stations themselves. A loss of 5% viewership due to "technical difficulties" caused by a government mandate is huge. Aren't advertising dollars linked to the number of viewers?

I just don't see a huge added cost keeping the infrastructure to transmit analog in place a few more months. Electricity? If it's labor, shutting down analog seems like it would result in layoffs more than delaying it.

The businesses that paid for the rights to frequency bands being vacated by analog TV are probably annoyed, but that isn't the existing TV broadcasters.

Yes. Electricity can be a great cost for non-commercial broadcasters who are operating on incredibly tight budgets and who are broadcasting statewide (multiple towers). We're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars in some cases. Many of those cash-strapped non-commercial broadcasters predicated their yearly budgets on the mandated Feb 17th shut-off date that has been looming for years.

Again, if I thought this delay was going to make a noticeable difference for that 5% of "unprepared" viewers then this would be a little easier to justify in my mind. I don't believe that it will.

As for commercial broadcasting, I seriously doubt that the 5% who are unaware and unprepared are very big buyers of goods and services in the first place. I'd bet you a significant number of them even now don't know anything about the digital conversion and won't know on June 12th either.

I think "snafu" describes this situation accurately.

I think "snafu" describes this situation accurately.

Or, alternately. "Fubar".

Still it's not a mandate: stations may still pull the plug before June 12 if they wish. Before they were required to stop transmitting analog signals on 2/17.



link (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10156931-38.html)

I bet most stations will continue broadcasting analog in addition to digital until 6/12 if they want to keep market share. Losing 5% of any market is huge.

It won't be that way here in Los Angeles.

Currently, the "big" channels are broadcasting digital in the UHF range. Some of them aren't even full-power right now. The only full-power digital stations are KCBS (2), KNBC (4), and KTLA (5). And that's because they're staying put on UHF. KABC (7), KCAL (9), KTTV (11), and KCOP (13) are among the stations who will be playing "musical chairs" when the switch-over occurs. They're going to slide back down to their original VHF-Hi channel assignments and begin full-power broadcasts. The other ones are staying on UHF because VHF Lo (2-6) frequencies are the most susceptible to interference from other RF-generating devices. So, broadcasting in both digital AND analog is not an option for channels 7-13.

BTW, the only frequencies that have been re-assigned to Police/Fire/First Responders and sold off to cell phone providers are UHF 52-69.

This morning, our local CBS affiliate (WCTV) was running notices to the effect that they were going ahead with the February 17 transition date. That's the station I turn on for local news and weather in the mornings -- I don't know what the other local stations are planning.

I do wish our local ABC affiliate would get with the program and provide their HD signal to DirecTV. Ironic that they run ads all the time crowing about having the only local news in HD (and they even have "HD" in their logo), but they are the only local network affiliate that isn't available in HD from DirecTV.

I want Lost in HD, blast it! :mad:

Qapla'

SSB

This morning, our local CBS affiliate (WCTV) was running notices to the effect that they were going ahead with the February 17 transition date. That's the station I turn on for local news and weather in the mornings -- I don't know what the other local stations are planning.

I do wish our local ABC affiliate would get with the program and provide their HD signal to DirecTV. Ironic that they run ads all the time crowing about having the only local news in HD (and they even have "HD" in their logo), but they are the only local network affiliate that isn't available in HD from DirecTV.

I want Lost in HD, blast it! :mad:

Qapla'

SSB

I'm guessing it's not your local affiliate that's not playing but DirecTV.

I'm guessing it's not your local affiliate that's not playing but DirecTV.I wondered about that ... they say it will be added eventually. I haven't contacted the local station to ask -- yet.

So what might the problem be, considering all the other locals (except the PBS station) are on DirecTV in HD?

Qapla'

SSB