backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 76 comment(s) - last by FaceMaster.. on Feb 11 at 8:06 AM

Although Congress has ultimately decided to delay the analog to digital transition from this month until June, some broadcasters are going to move forward as planned

Although Congress has officially pushed back the analog to digital television transition from February 17 to June 12, stations still have the ability to make the DTV switch if they choose.

Rather than keep it simple with one date for everyone, the FCC opened the opportunity for broadcasters who want to make the transition early, but they most follow a set of guidelines.  All broadcasters aiming to switch on February 17 must contact the FCC by Monday and let them know of their intentions.  

Major broadcast networks, including ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC, will not switch off analog signals until this spring, though local affiliates are free to do as they please.  It's likely the major networks will put pressure on their affiliates to also delay the switch until June 12.

The FCC has the final call on each station, and can decide a station must wait to make the switch if they don't do enough to inform their viewers.  In addition, the FCC will frown upon the possibility of all stations in a certain market wanting to make the switch early.

"We reserve the right to deny those requests if we find that it would not serve the public interest or if it would frustrate Congress' goal of giving consumers adequate time to prepare," said acting FCC Chairman Michael Copps.

Full FCC guidelines are available here (PDF).

Numerous stations have come forward and said they will drop analog broadcasts in less than two weeks.  There are 1,796 full-power TV stations in operation in the United States, with hundreds expected to switch over on the original date.  

There was a growing concern that many Americans weren't prepared for the switch on February 17, and the government fund to offer subsidized vouchers quickly ran out of money with millions still on the list.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

This should never have been postponed
By amanojaku on 2/6/2009 3:36:02 PM , Rating: 5
Some people don't move to anything new unless they're forced, and a good leader doesn't switch positions in mid-swing just because people didn't protect themselves. Bad Obama, bad!




By Moishe on 2/6/2009 3:43:33 PM , Rating: 5
Absolutely right.

I think the delay actually promotes stupidity because it babies the ignorant or lazy. I think we can truly say that people who care about having a converter box will go out and by one when they turn on the TV an realize that 'it no workie'.


RE: This should never have been postponed
By reader1 on 2/6/09, Rating: 0
RE: This should never have been postponed
By geddarkstorm on 2/6/2009 5:11:50 PM , Rating: 5
First come first serve.

The cost of a converter is not extreme, and TV is not a necessity. I live without it just fine, thank you. If the government ran out of its supplies for this luxury item, which means everyone else in the country was paying for those using the vouchers, then so be it. I don't think it's surprising, and we shouldn't punish the TV stations who are ready for the switch (it costs them money to wait, and now their big investments have to sit and rot for a few months if the FCC denies them), companies looking to use the freed up space (though they are getting compensated), and the rest of the country who are paying for this.


RE: This should never have been postponed
By reader1 on 2/6/2009 5:28:59 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
First come first serve.


So people were supposed to predict a shortage of coupons? Uh, okay.

quote:
The cost of a converter is not extreme, and TV is not a necessity.


$60 is a lot for a cheap, piece of crap Insignia/Zenith or Apex brand converter. Those things are worth $15 at the most. You would have to be a moron to buy one of those things at full price.

quote:
...we shouldn't punish the TV stations


It's optional. How are they being punished? If they want to lose viewers they can go right ahead.


RE: This should never have been postponed
By Keeir on 2/6/2009 6:40:34 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
$60 is a lot for a cheap, piece of crap Insignia/Zenith or Apex brand converter. Those things are worth $15 at the most. You would have to be a moron to buy one of those things at full price.


Most of the reason they are more than 40 dollars is the government issues coupons for 40 dollars so stores feel free to charge a reasonable value difference, in this case 40+15. I have seen estimates of 20-30 dollar price mark-ups because of the program, but such things are hard to gage


By mindless1 on 2/7/2009 11:15:41 AM , Rating: 2
Considering that they are not as complex as $40 DVD players which are often discounted to less than that, and that the tech is not terribly complex, I'd place the value closer to $40, then $30 after sufficient numbers are sold to offset R&D, manufacturing line returns, etc.

I mean for the better models that qualify for the coupons, the lesser ones like anything else, devalue themselves through being beaten by the competition.

I'm not quite sure what the prior poster means by piece of crap Insignia/Zenith, these are not like old CRT TV boards, they are modern high quality PCBs simply built to a $40 coupon price-point so they lack a few features, nicer remote, etc, just like you'd find with (whatever the prior poster had in mind for *quality* brands?) Sony, Panasonic, etc. lower-tiered models of other consumer electronics.


RE: This should never have been postponed
By amanojaku on 2/6/2009 8:26:41 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
So people were supposed to predict a shortage of coupons? Uh, okay.
Yes. Ever heard of the term "out of stock?" If it's free it's even more likely to be gone in 60 seconds, no matter how crappy. Check out a buffet sometime. And the fact that there is a cap on the number of coupons available kind of *shrug* implies that it can run out. The lesson here is you snooze you loose, and sometimes you loose regardless of your efforts.

quote:
$60 is a lot for a cheap, piece of crap Insignia/Zenith or Apex brand converter. Those things are worth $15 at the most. You would have to be a moron to buy one of those things at full price.
True, but this is a capitalist society. People can charge what they want if you're willing to pay it. Anyway, the coupon could be used for a $1,000 converter, as well. It just makes more sense to use it on something a little cheaper, since a person dropping $1,000 on a piece of equipment isn't going to notice $80 (2x$40 coupons) in discounts.

I think the government is generous to give away (capitalist society!!!) coupons for this switch, and wasteful because the billion or so dollars could have been used for important things. I don't have cable any more, so I'm biased, but I don't consider TV to be necessary. Medicine for babies, homes for the elderly, yeah.

quote:
It's optional. How are they being punished? If they want to lose viewers they can go right ahead.
The TV stations are being "punished" because they have to maintain both an analog and digital infrastructure. One of the reasons for the switch is that digital equipment is cheaper to maintain than analog equipment. Since the money was spent to build out the new it makes no sense to keep the old going. Twice the space, power, heat, cables, converters, operators... If someone makes you pay twice for something you're going to feel punished, too.


RE: This should never have been postponed
By reader1 on 2/6/09, Rating: -1
RE: This should never have been postponed
By amanojaku on 2/6/2009 10:35:01 PM , Rating: 5
Don't be ridiculous. This IS assistance. Giving people money to HELP pay for things is assistance. This is food stamps for TVs.


RE: This should never have been postponed
By mindless1 on 2/7/2009 11:42:34 AM , Rating: 1
Actually, no.

The average low income household does have wage earners that pay taxes. The majority doing without at this point are bound to be the elderly who have paid the taxes that funded the things you enjoy today like roads.

Getting something in return for their tax money (IF it were tax money, which again for the 1000th time, it is not) would be the right thing to do.

Look at it another way, people sitting at home watching TV aren't congesting or putting wear on the roads, but they are still taxed to pay for them.

I'm sure there is someone somewhere who doesn't work, has a zillion kids and on welfare who got a coupon. That doesn't negate the reasonable expectations of others to receive something back for their taxes that benefits them (again, since they are paying for something others use more due to not being planted in front of the TV set, like roads). If it'll make you feel better, we can just give those people a $40 refund on their taxes then they can do whatever they want with the money.


By jimbojimbo on 2/10/2009 2:57:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The majority doing without at this point are bound to be the elderly who have paid the taxes that funded the things you enjoy today like roads.
Oh, you mean like social security and medicare? Oh wait, we're paying for that.


RE: This should never have been postponed
By masher2 (blog) on 2/6/2009 11:24:42 PM , Rating: 2
Public roads belong to the people also, but that doesn't mean the government must buy me a Mercedes to drive on them, now does it?


RE: This should never have been postponed
By reader1 on 2/7/2009 1:20:19 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, if the government passed a law against driving anything but a Mercedes. Then they would certainly have to compensate people.


By ekv on 2/7/2009 3:38:11 AM , Rating: 2
First, the Federal government has been passing mandates for a while. They expect compliance but it is not their responsibility to guarantee or help you pass. More technically, an "unfunded mandate."

Second, the government hasn't passed a law against driving anything but a Mercedes. You can drive your Yugo -- if it'll work. Get the picture?


RE: This should never have been postponed
By ThePooBurner on 2/7/09, Rating: 0
RE: This should never have been postponed
By mindless1 on 2/7/2009 11:30:45 AM , Rating: 3
False. They did not suddenly make it impossible for millions of people to use the automobile they already owned, it gradually happened over time even if you consider emission testing which exempted cars old enough they lacked the tech needed to meet new standards.


By Performance Fanboi on 2/7/2009 1:49:27 PM , Rating: 1
Suddenly? How can anyone think that this is a sudden change happening here?

I also take some exception to the article title - it should be 'on time' - or 'as planned' instead of early.


By Performance Fanboi on 2/7/2009 1:54:57 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry for replying to my own poet but I needed to add:

Since we are using car analogies here how about using the early history. When cars first hit the road there were no insurance/licensing requirements. When the government mandated such requirements did they pay for everyone to get them?


By ThePooBurner on 2/9/2009 10:52:36 AM , Rating: 2
Actually i think that is one of the best analogies so far.


By mindless1 on 2/7/2009 9:20:22 PM , Rating: 2
Suddenly in this case means within the viable lifespan of the TV they already owned.

In contrast, cars weren't made unusable within their lifespan, people retained use then when it came time to replace it, even if they bought another used car produced before the mandates, that 2nd still was usable and so on until the time came to buy another manufactured with the newer tech.

Same should have happened with DTV if it weren't for the coupons, that there should have been simultaneous broadcast of both analog and digital while requiring all TVs to have digital tuners for a longer period of time.

I too think the switchover should happen now instead of being delayed, instead they should not have spent the time fooling with extensions, they should have coupons funds reallocated and increased, coupons distributed.

They, like the people without DTV coupons, had plenty of time to get this done when they knew they had the situation. Even now, if they did this instead the coupons could be in the mail and people have the option of how long to sit in front of a blank tv before redeeming the coupon.

Of course this is stretching things a bit, if it's that big of an issue to watch TV they should just spend the $40 out of pocket at this point unless quite financially strained.


RE: This should never have been postponed
By mindless1 on 2/7/2009 11:27:29 AM , Rating: 1
The government does mandate that you drive on those roads instead of picking your own path (unless your own private property), while using your taxes to pay for those roads.

Not all that much different than mandating what gets sent over the airwaves and using taxes to pay for that conversion, except it isn't even taxes this time it's a small % of the profits, a net gain.

How quickly people forget a basic fact. Without the coupon program as a stipulation we will/would not have switched, would not have this arguably significant advancement in communications potential. It's a win-win for everyone exactly the way it is (if they'd allocated enough coupon funds and time to distribute them).


By ekv on 2/7/2009 6:35:17 PM , Rating: 3
I would agree that the coupon program was a key ingredient in making the switchover. You can make the argument that the US did not pick the most advanced technology, as compared to other systems, but it is better than what we have currently, and it's about time!

Others here have remarked quite vociferously about the government going-to-excess in this coupon program. I'll not harp on it further, except to note that once the career politicians get involved you see an element of pandering. Like the coupon is some kind of birthright or something. I knew about the switchover, saved dough, and bought my mum a new TV, what, about a year ago already. I don't make that much. The government can stick that coupon you-know-where. That, or give me back my tax money (which they shouldn't have taken to begin with).


By theapparition on 2/6/2009 9:48:04 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The TV stations are being "punished" because they have to maintain both an analog and digital infrastructure. One of the reasons for the switch is that digital equipment is cheaper to maintain than analog equipment. Since the money was spent to build out the new it makes no sense to keep the old going. Twice the space, power, heat, cables, converters, operators... If someone makes you pay twice for something you're going to feel punished, too.

Exactly. Almost all PBS stations will make the switch. The estimate from PBS to keep both signals going for a lousy four months is 28 million! They just can't afford to keep both running.


RE: This should never have been postponed
By Oregonian2 on 2/7/2009 10:29:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So people were supposed to predict a shortage of coupons? Uh, okay.


When they were first made available a year or so ago it was presented strongly that the number available was fixed and that people should get theirs early. People only had to "predict" that the government's strong assertions were true or not (they were).

quote:
$60 is a lot for a cheap, piece of crap Insignia/Zenith or Apex brand converter. Those things are worth $15 at the most. You would have to be a moron to buy one of those things at full price.


You obviously are not in "the industry" (I'm a EE with 30 years experience) and have no clue as to how much it takes to make (and import, and sell retail) those. $15 is way too low.

Perhaps you should import them and sell them for $20 and make a killing.


RE: This should never have been postponed
By Samus on 2/8/2009 2:47:50 AM , Rating: 2
Oregonian, I am also an Electical Engineering degree, and honestly, a Digital to Analog convertor should cost considerably LESS than $15, even with a DC PSU and infrared remote circuit, $50 is highway robbery and people are really just looking to screw the government with the rebate dollars as much as possible. Mark my words, these things will cost $20 in 12 months.

A real world example of a commercial A/D convertor are the $20 DVD players sold at Walgreens, CVS, etc, made by Apex, Philips, etc.

Ohh yea, and aside from having an A/D convertor, they have:

RISC processor capable of decoding MPEG2 streams
DVD drive with red optical laser capable of reading CD/DVD
Cache memory (usually 32-64MB) for stream buffer
Operating system to handle MPEG2/JPG/CD-A
Some have JAVA/DivX decode support (usually $30 for those)
High wattage power supply for all electronics onboard
Front panel display
Remote control (yep, most DTV boxes in the <$40 range DON'T)

and...THEY'RE NOT FREE. Must have received your EE from a Community College.


By Oregonian2 on 2/8/2009 8:16:06 PM , Rating: 2
So, you're arguing that every DVD player that sells for more than $20 is a ripoff because it is possible for the lowest-end bottom-scum unit to sell for $20?

About a year ago I bought an OPPO DVD player for a bit over $200 and I'm delighted with it, even if their gross margins are probably pretty good. Their volumes are comparatively low.

In terms of pricing, there's absolutely no way in heaven that it would go under the $40 provided by the coupons! Marketing aspects would drive that even if they were free to make/ship/distribute/retail_sell. If the manufacturer sold it for $10, Best Buy (or whomever else) would up it to $40 and be idiots not to. More money and be perfectly legal. At least while coupons are still being given out.

But in any case, MOST DVD players go for more than $20, most for a lot more than that (lots of them are in the $49~89 range). DVD players have been made by a lot of companies and have been made in enormous quantities for a long period of time (allows paying for production "tooling" for that high volume and the resulting low-per-unit amortization). Because they're going out of style now, pricing may also reflect close-outs or surplus stock.

Judging by the one I've opened (one I got with my coupon for our guest bedroom about a year ago), the pricing is reasonable for retail sales of something that's a one-time short-term product with likely higher per-unit support costs (customers will be confused a lot IMO, comparatively speaking). Could it be driven down to rock bottom levels if driven to high volumes over time? Yes, probably, but probably won't be. Sales of them will end soon. It includes a remote, btw.

That said, others may be more like your description, I'm just judging on the one I opened a year or so ago.

P.P.S. - I do agree they probably will be $20 in 12 months. They'll probably stop manufacturing them long before then, the market for them will be crashing a month or two after the time when the stations actually do the switchover. I can't imagine anybody buying a new analog set or paying for a analog set gotten at goodwill then buying a converter for it. :-)

P.S. - My EE was at a major U.S. school, and I've been a Principal Engineer at a very large company. I'll admit though, that most of the stuff I've designed weren't built in China, just a couple things in recent times. Before recently they were made domestically. Radical. :-) :-) You may have more experience in China-made prices and the retail delivery and support chain.


By mezman on 2/9/2009 4:39:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When they were first made available a year or so ago it was presented strongly that the number available was fixed and that people should get theirs early. People only had to "predict" that the government's strong assertions were true or not (they were).


There are presently $600M in outstanding coupons. That means that means that 15 million coupons were requested, issued, and subsequently stuffed in a drawer and forgotten about.

These people would have no one to blame but themselves if their TV had gone dark on 17 Feb.


By Keeir on 2/6/2009 5:27:35 PM , Rating: 3
https://www.dtv2009.gov/docs/Weekly_Stats_Report_e...

As of February 4th. The status of the Coupon Program.

I think the important thing here I would note is the number of "Active" coupons, IE coupons that have been mailed and not used as well as number coupons that "Expired" before they were used.

Once a coupon goes expired, a person can not reapply for that coupon. Currently only 53.9% of coupons are redeemed within 90 days. This suggests that out of the 10.2 million active coupns, less than 6 million will be redeemed leaving 4+ million coupons left. Out of the 3.7 million on wait list, only 2 million will be used. The program still has plenty of money, just not money free to issue coupons immediately since (alot) of people apply for these things and never use them.


RE: This should never have been postponed
By FaceMaster on 2/6/2009 9:58:53 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Some people don't move to anything new unless they're forced


That's because they're happy with what they've got.


RE: This should never have been postponed
By jimbojimbo on 2/10/2009 3:00:00 PM , Rating: 2
No, they're lazy. Everyone who doesn't have the converter boxes now won't have them come June and we'll be having this same discussion again.


By FaceMaster on 2/11/2009 8:06:48 AM , Rating: 2
I guess that all XP users are lazy for not bothering to upgrade to Vista. They're dragging everybody else back! So what if they prefer XP? If they use Vista enough surely they'll enjoy the benefits!!!!!! (/sarcasm)

Not every one is interested in televisions. In fact, I know a lot of people who just have a television for the sake of it and spend little or no time on it. It's not a case of being 'lazy'. It's just lack of interest. Not all of us are technology maniacs. In fact, those of us who are would probably use a PC for anything, any way. Why upgrade something that does the job okay, any way?


By Regs on 2/8/2009 5:30:45 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. If he was serious about our economy, he should making policies that actually promote the growth of technology. Assembly line, combustion, and refrigeration ring a bell? We have to get the private sectors pumping again with better technology.

While we're at it, lets also cut spending on NASA...oh wait.


By Hyraxxx on 2/8/2009 9:10:16 PM , Rating: 2
It's a bad move in the first place. i prefer static than, out of sync audio, blockiness, and reception issues


John Wayne' America is Dead
By Smokey48 on 2/6/2009 3:43:33 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
There was a growing concern that many Americans weren't prepared for the switch on February 17, and the government fund to offer subsidized vouchers quickly ran out of money with millions still on the list.
In one of his movies the Duke talked about the Pioneers: "The weak died along the way, and the cowards never started."

The American mindset has changed, from a "can-do" attitude that put men on the moon, to a nanny-state society that thinks we need Big Gov't to baby everyone from the cradle to the grave.

If TV stations stop analog broadcasts, the problem will resolve itself in short order. People don't need bureaucrats involved in every facet of their lives and in every business decision. Next thing you know, the same bureaucrats will try to kill off a.m. radio...

...oh, wait. Nevermind.




RE: John Wayne' America is Dead
By praktik on 2/6/2009 3:51:31 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The American mindset has changed, from a "can-do" attitude that put men on the moon, to a nanny-state society that thinks we need Big Gov't to baby everyone from the cradle to the grave.


Flawed history here. At the time America put men on the moon "The Great Society" was in full swing: expanded education funding, the GI Bill, the TVA, more progressive taxation, unemployment insurance and the rest.

The era is referred to as "The Age of Consensus", when both parties had centrists who agreed that government intervention could make things better, instead of today, where one party thinks that everything the government touches turns to crap (see: The Reagan Revolution, the Gingrich Revolution, and Dubya aka Reagan Revolution 2.0).

At the time America put men on the moon living standards were rising across the board and America's exports were king of the hill. The benefits of growth were shared across all strata. Now our latest period of growth has ended, but it was unique in that of all the growth that occured since the 90s - the lions share was enjoyed by the top fifth of society, while the rest stagnated or saw their relative incomes shrink.

Maybe there WAS something to that era Smokey48, but an anti-big-government era it was not.


RE: John Wayne' America is Dead
By acase on 2/6/2009 3:59:40 PM , Rating: 4
pwned


RE: John Wayne' America is Dead
By BAFrayd on 2/6/2009 4:39:05 PM , Rating: 4
Care to back that up with some numbers?


RE: John Wayne' America is Dead
By bjacobson on 2/6/2009 10:30:58 PM , Rating: 4
If you think expanding educational funding is all that is needed to produce more smart people, you've got another thing coming. Typical liberal mindset-- give it more money, and that will fix the problem. The problem is the people, not the funding. An exemplary education can be had at any public school, even the ones with 20 year old math textbooks-- all it takes is parental involvement to make sure the kids are doing, and learning, their school work. Public schools have become a daycare, as well. Why do you think a college diploma is required to get a job in the work force? Because the public school education system is interested in statistics and graduations rates, so they just pump the kids through now.

Same thing is happening, to a lesser extent, with undergraduates: grade inflation. It's a buyers market, and there's no shortage of community colleges willing to print diplomas.

Now as for your more progressive taxation, keep in mind this only works if you can lock the cash into US borders: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121124460502305693...
That's very hard to do.
I'm ok with progressive taxation (in fact I'm becoming a strong supporter of it as Greenspan is), but don't tax the rising upper-middle class (these are the people who spend most of their new income to improve their standard of living; they stimulate the economy the most), you want to tax the people that have so much money that extra money doesn't mean an increased standard of living for them. And you can't make it a salary cap, it has to be progressive so as to refrain from removing motivation to make more money.


RE: John Wayne' America is Dead
By grcunning on 2/8/2009 11:51:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
An exemplary education can be had at any public school, even the ones with 20 year old math textbooks-- all it takes is parental involvement to make sure the kids are doing, and learning, their school work


Wrong...
I recently graduated from a public city school in a decaying, blue-collar town. I would have LOVED a 20 year old textbook. We didn't even have textbooks for every student, we had to take a book off the shelf when class started, and return it when class ended. We would get detention if we wanted to take a book home and study.

I always find it amusing that people coming from schools in wealthy neighborhoods tell people like me that everyone has the same opportunity to learn...what a crock. Come to my school and tell the teachers and students that money won't help the problem, and while you're at it, why don't you bring your checkbook.


RE: John Wayne' America is Dead
By masher2 (blog) on 2/6/2009 11:23:13 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Flawed history here. At the time America put men on the moon "The Great Society" was in full swing: expanded education funding, the GI Bill, the TVA, more progressive taxation, unemployment insurance and the rest
The history isn't flawed, you simply haven't accounted for the latency involved. Since 1969, an entire generation of Americans have grown up thinking the government can and should solve all their problems, that they're entitled to free food, education, housing, medical care, and even entertainment...god forbid the government not provide a new TV when the airwaves go digital.

It took decades to create, but the entitlement generation has finally arrived.

quote:
Maybe there WAS something to that era Smokey48, but an anti-big-government era it was not.
Nonsense. Compared to the 1950s, the 60s certainly expanded government, but by the standards of today, it most certainly was not an era of "big government".

In 1964, federal nondefense spending was 12.5% of GDP. Today, it's about 18%...and bailout measures seem likely to push that up over 20%. We also have tens of thousands of new federal regulations on every sector of the economy, and even most phases of our personal and private lives.

quote:
where one party thinks that everything the government touches turns to crap
The events of the past year prove that general rule rather well. Government meddling in the home mortgage and banking sectors has given us a crisis that, by some estimates, will cost more than the sum total of every major war the US has ever fought combined.


RE: John Wayne' America is Dead
By oab on 2/6/2009 11:52:56 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The events of the past year prove that general rule rather well. Government meddling in the home mortgage and banking sectors has given us a crisis that, by some estimates, will cost more than the sum total of every major war the US has ever fought combined.


However, if there were greater restrictions on the amount of capital a bank was required to keep on hand, the banks likely would not have collapsed the way they did (AIG still likely would have however). See the banks in Canada, which are subject to much greater regulations on how much they can leverage themselves.

The removal of the division between the investment banks and the corporate banks didn't help either.

That and the 1.5% interest rate combined with predatory lenders pushing sub-prime mortgages on people who would never have been able to pay once the introductory rates wore off.

Plus the federal "encouragement" for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to provide some sub-prime mortgages to lenders.

As well as the failure of the government to regulate credit default swaps on the commodity exchanges, limiting speculation (which if done might have saved AIG).

The argument can be made that there was not enough government regulation in the banking sector (capital requirements too low), combined with too much meddling in the same sector of a different type (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should not have even continued to exist, their reason for existence had passed).

It isn't quite as simple as the government stuck its fingers into the mortgage/banking sector and therefore it went pop.


By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/2009 6:46:47 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
That and the 1.5% interest rate combined with predatory lenders...It isn't quite as simple as the government stuck its fingers into the mortgage/banking sector and therefore it went pop
You contradict yourself. Who sets the primary interest rate? The federal government. And why on earth would "predatory lendors" make bad loans to people who can't repay them, if the government, through Fannie Mac, wasn't buying up those loans, ensuring that the taxpayer took the risk, while the lendor received the profit?

quote:
The removal of the division between the investment banks and the corporate banks didn't help either
That certainly made the crisis worse, but it in no way engendered it. Had government action not overheated the real estate sector red-hot, had interest rates been allowed to rise properly to bring the sector back to reality, it never would have collapsed in the first place.

The same thing applies to credit derivates. They amplify market conditions, but they in no way create them.


RE: John Wayne' America is Dead
By cmdrdredd on 2/7/2009 8:42:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
At the time America put men on the moon living standards were rising across the board and America's exports were king of the hill. The benefits of growth were shared across all strata. Now our latest period of growth has ended, but it was unique in that of all the growth that occured since the 90s - the lions share was enjoyed by the top fifth of society, while the rest stagnated or saw their relative incomes shrink.


At that time also you DIDN'T have an EU to compete with (euro vs dollar) no cheap chinese exports that put american's out of work etc.

You also had the cold war, racial segregation and inequality across the nation, the cuban missile crisis, an assasination plot that worked against the president, and the real fear that the USSR would launch an attack at any time. People today just don't remember what it's like to have drills in grade school on what to do during a nuclear attack.

It wasn't all happy days unless you were a hippie from california who got high daily. Maybe that's why you can only remember how good it felt and not how horrible things really were let alone admit how far we have come.


RE: John Wayne' America is Dead
By reader1 on 2/6/09, Rating: -1
RE: John Wayne' America is Dead
By geddarkstorm on 2/6/2009 5:05:09 PM , Rating: 3
I don't think he was speaking against government itself or government agencies, but the idea that the government has to hold the hand of every citizen with no motivation to do something at the expense of all those who've already done it. The idea is, if we would do the switch when we had planed to as of two years ago, then those who had lagged behind would finally have the motivation to do the switch themselves rather than wait for government vouchers - vouchers that do come from /everyone's/ pockets.


RE: John Wayne' America is Dead
By reader1 on 2/6/09, Rating: -1
By psychobriggsy on 2/7/2009 7:04:22 PM , Rating: 1
Exactly correct.

The government had two routes.

1) Mandate that all TVs have digital tuners built in. Wait 10 years, and then switch over, expecting that natural replacement cycles will have worked in 95% of households, and that for the rest the box would be so cheap by that time that it is a negligible cost to provide replacements.

2) Mandate that all TVs have digital tuners built in. Wait 3 years and switch over, and provide coupons to the rest for breaking their television equipment before the reasonable end of life.

America went with 2. The UK seems to have gone with 1.


By Bruneauinfo on 2/6/2009 6:43:24 PM , Rating: 2
keep in mind we're talking about TV here. the opiate of the masses.


When to shut it off....
By bissimo on 2/6/2009 4:32:43 PM , Rating: 2
The real example of a nanny state here is the fact that the government is forcing TV station to end analog transmission altogether. Why, exactly, should a for-profit company be required to change its delivery medium if that is what the customer (viewers) want and are happy with?

I'm not saying DTV isn't great. I bought a converter box for the TV in my garage and and very pleased with picture quality and extra stations. My question is this: Why can't TV stations choose when they shut off their analog signals? If it's economically preferable for them to broadcast is both analog and digital, why not let them?

I understand that the wavelengths currently used for analog are slated for other purposes, but I'm unclear on what. Could someone shed some light on this for me?




RE: When to shut it off....
By bmacnaughton on 2/6/2009 4:46:23 PM , Rating: 3
Well, the simple reason is that broadcast stations are being allowed to use the public airwaves at the pleasure of the public, represented however imperfectly by the government.

Analog technology uses too much bandwidth (by today's standards) that can better serve the public interests when put to other applications.

The specific applications that are anticipated are public safety (police, fire, etc.) in addition to wireless broadband.


RE: When to shut it off....
By grath on 2/6/2009 6:48:11 PM , Rating: 3
To say analog is "what the customer wants" is inaccurate. In general the customer just wants an image on the screen and could care less how it is delivered. Humans in general are afraid of and reluctant to change, or their ego opposes the idea of buying something cause the govt makes them, but that does not mean "they want analog."

It is not economically preferable. Transmitting both requires more transmitters, more electricity, and more spectrum, all of which cost money. The digital transmission scheme is more efficient in terms of power and spectrum usage, so it could be said that over enough time the digital transmission equipment will pay for itself.

The frequencies in question are desirable mainly because they penetrate walls and buildings fairly well. Thats what made them useful for TV, since people much prefer rabbit ears to mounting an antenna on the roof. For a long time that was the most useful and efficient application of that spectrum. Now that there are better ways to transmit that video, continuing to use that spectrum with a half century old transmission scheme is an irresponsible and inefficient use of a valuable national resource. What TV was a few generations ago, high speed internet is today. Cable or DSL are still not available everywhere, and the buzzword is that we need a "third pipe." The characteristics of the spectrum that made it useful for TV makes it equally useful for internet, and the transmission scheme makes more efficient use of that spectrum.

This is not about videophiles wanting slightly better quality, or corporations trying to save money, or government sticking their nose in where they shouldnt. Its about how efficiently we use a valuable public national resource. Like most resources, its finite, or at least what we can utilize of it with current technology is finite. It should not be underutilized for the sake of avoiding temporary inconvenience by sticking with 50+ year old technology.


RE: When to shut it off....
By bissimo on 2/9/2009 10:17:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
the customer just wants an image on the screen and could care less how it is delivered.


Exactly. Why force digital onto people who only want an image on the screen?
I'm just saying that it should be the decision of the television stations as to when they turn off their analog feeds. When the ad revenues no longer support analog, turn it off.
I'm sure the government has very laudable purposes in mind for those wavelengths, but if whatever they're going to be used for has gotten by thus far without them, I'm sure they can wait until the status quo adjusts itself naturally (or at least with a little bit of prodding.)


Eh.
By rburnham on 2/6/2009 4:34:27 PM , Rating: 2
There's nothing to watch on TV anyway. =P




RE: Eh.
By mmatis on 2/6/2009 4:45:46 PM , Rating: 2
You've basically got that right - nothing but sewage, anyway. I am OTA, haven't got one of those damn converters, and when the set turns to snow it will go in the garbage. I don't really care if that's in two weeks or in a few months.


RE: Eh.
By meepstone on 2/6/2009 4:57:40 PM , Rating: 2
I bet jack bauer would disagree with you.


RE: Eh.
By mmatis on 2/6/2009 5:29:06 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, right!


RE: Eh.
By teckytech9 on 2/6/2009 7:38:29 PM , Rating: 2
Frankly, I find public broadcasting programs (PBS) as an alternative to major network programming.

There are still those in the broadcast industry who believe in responsible journalism and eventually end up at PBS.


Now comes the real confusion
By gstrickler on 2/6/2009 8:10:06 PM , Rating: 3
1. If you have a DTV or set-top converter, you know that you have to allow it to scan the RF frequencies to find the DTV stations. Most will not allow you to manually add a DTV channel, in large part because the "virtual channel number" may not be the same as the RF channel on which it's broadcast. Unless the user knows the proper RF channel, knowing the "virtual channel number" (which is what that station advertises) isn't useful.

2. Some stations are changing the RF channel used for their DTV broadcast when they end their analog broadcast.

3. Due to the combination #1 & #2, most viewers are going to have to tell their DTV or converter to rescan in order to continue receiving the digital channels they can receive today. They will have to do it each time a station changes it's DTV RF frequency.

With a hard transition of Feb 17, they would have to do this one time after the transition. They will also have to do it when a new station begins broadcasting, but that's typically only once every 5-10 years.

Now, they could potentially have to do it several times between Feb 17 and June 12. In some cases, a station is moving their DTV broadcast back to their analog RF channel after turning off analog.

In other cases, a station may be moving to an RF channel that is currently used for the analog or digital broadcast of another station, so they have to wait until the first station makes it's change(s).

The FCC can minimize these changes by only allowing a station that is changing it's DTV RF channel to do so only on Feb 17th or on June 12th, but not at any time in between. Whether or not they've got the foresight to do that, I don't know.

The delay is a potentially much bigger source of confusion than sticking with the original plan. If you want to see "mismanaged" (as they've called the DTV transition and/or coupon program), just wait to see the mess they're about to create with this delay.

Of course, if the delay does cause even more confusion, they'll just use that as evidence that we weren't ready on Feb 17th and claim the delay prevented an even bigger problem.

Thank you in advance for screwing up a well planned transition.




By gstrickler on 2/6/2009 8:30:06 PM , Rating: 2
And a follow-up note. From:
http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/feb/06...
quote:
Stores could soon run out of the federally subsidized boxes that let an older TV set receive new digital signals, the Consumer Electronics Association has warned. Manufacturers stopped making the boxes in early January, expecting that demand would peak around Feb. 17, when U.S. full-power TV stations were slated to turn off their analog signals. However, Congress this week voted to extend the deadline to June 12....

Let the debacle begin.


RE: Now comes the real confusion
By reader1 on 2/6/2009 8:42:04 PM , Rating: 1
Auto-scanning is easy:

1) On the remote, press "Menu".
2) Select "Auto Channel Search/Scan".
3) Push "Enter" or "OK".
4) Take the remote and shove it up your ass.
5) We won, get over it.


In other news...
By diggernash on 2/6/2009 5:06:22 PM , Rating: 3
Congress mandates Automated Toilet Paper Dispensers for all households to reduce waste... $40 billion appropriated to study optimal sheet size and feed rate...




RE: In other news...
By geddarkstorm on 2/6/2009 5:13:31 PM , Rating: 2
Shhh, they'll hear you!


Sounds like good news to me
By nwrigley on 2/6/2009 3:48:41 PM , Rating: 2
I think the best way for people to realize that the switch is happening is for some of their stations to disappear. People are going to ignore commercials and newspaper articles much easier than having actually losing a station. Having all the stations switch over to digital on the same day is a poor idea.




RE: Sounds like good news to me
By PrinceGaz on 2/6/2009 8:22:57 PM , Rating: 2
I think that is how it is being done here in britain, except that in addition it is a region by region switchover between 2008 and 2012 (and I'm unfortunate enough to live in a region that has to wait until 2012 for the digital-signals to be increased to full power, and currently only just receive a strong enough signal on a set-top box, and my USB DTV stick is missing some channels).

Certainly what happened in the first region here in Britain, was that several weeks before the analogue switch-off, one of the five (or four for some people) analogue channels was replaced with a warning that all the other channels will be taken off air on ... and that you must either ... to continue watching TV, along with how those eligible (pensioners, low-income etc) could get a subsidised STB and have it installed and demonstrated. Note that in Britain- the free STBs were means-tested, only certain groups were eligible to receive them.

Turning off one or more channels a few weeks ahead of the total turn-off, and replacing it with an infomercial about what you need to do to continue watching TV has to be the best idea, so long as someone is willing to pay to broadcast one or more analogue channels which previously made money but now just broadcasts a non money-making infomercial on a loop (it didn't matter here as they just replaced one of the non-commercially funded BBC channels).


Techno Babblers
By nateclind on 2/6/2009 7:00:29 PM , Rating: 2
I realize this delay holds back expanding various communications technologies, but get a grip...

The last poster acts like government will just take care of anyone whose lazy.

Alright then. Don't pay your mortgage. Don't pay your taxes. Have as many kids as possible.

Your homeless family will sit on the curb while people walk by telling you to get a freakin' job. I've seen it. In D.C., California, Colorado, and Minnesota. Now you should own it.




RE: Techno Babblers
By nateclind on 2/7/2009 11:46:30 AM , Rating: 2
just to correct myself... who's lazy... not whose...


So the government . . .
By SurreDeth on 2/6/2009 3:42:49 PM , Rating: 2
. . . found a tricky way to make the broadcasters look like the evil greedy guys out of this whole mess?




Blame
By gwynethgh on 2/6/2009 4:03:28 PM , Rating: 2
I tend to feel that the public has been half asleep on this and therefore they (not us) deserve a slap to wake them up EXCEPT that congress and the FCC totally hosed the coupon deal (slow mail out after request, crazy expiration date crap, and under funded). I guess there is enough blame to go around.




Why did I bother
By feelstupid on 2/6/2009 4:39:05 PM , Rating: 2
I feel stupid for taking care of my 80 yr old mother last year. She's been watching her 20 digital channels and feels like she pirated someone's cable. I should have just waited. Maybe she'd get a free TV like the prisoners in Massachusetts. I think I'll stop paying my mortgage, stop paying my taxes. Have octuplets and then maybe someone will offer me a reality show on analog TV.




By kusala on 2/8/2009 7:54:57 AM , Rating: 2
Even people that did not need boxes were getting as many as they can sing family members info and selling them for a profit. Thats where alot of these boxes went. Greedy people that did not need the boxes. Just wanting to make a buck




Lame a$$ people
By SR81 on 2/8/2009 10:09:22 AM , Rating: 2
If your too broke to afford a converter box out of pocket then you have more important matters at hand then to be able to watch OTA broadcasts.... like looking for a second job or how are you gonna get food on the table.




Band-Aid analogy
By tmouse on 2/9/2009 9:26:55 AM , Rating: 2
Geeze people this is going to happen whether you like it or not. A few months more will make absolutely no difference. When it’s time for the Band-Aid to come off if you pull it fast; there will be a lot of screaming then it will quickly die down. What we are doing now is just pulling a hair at a time so there will be a lot of screaming for a longer time until the last hair is pulled.




"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen














botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki