backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 57 comment(s) - last by Reflex.. on Dec 31 at 1:00 PM
Consumers needing a converter who wait may find coupons aren't available

As we wade through the last few days of 2008, the digital transition becomes closer with each passing day. On February 17, 2009, the vast majority of TV broadcasters nationwide will be flipping the switch and going to all digital broadcasts.

The U.S. government tried to make the transition from analog to digital broadcasts as easy as possible. To help the estimated 15% of the U.S. population relying on TVs that can only receive analog signals, a coupon program was introduced to offset most or all of the cost of a converter box.

In October, DailyTech reported that the FCC said the federal government was not ready for the last minute rush of consumers who need a convertor box. Unsurprisingly, the FCC was right. Reuters reports that the funds set aside to provide the $40 coupons to those needing converters are estimated to run out in early January.

After the initial amount of funds runs out, those who apply for coupons will have to wait until funds from coupons that go unused are available. The total budget set aside for the convertor coupon program was $1.34 billion.

Meredith Attwell Baker from the National Telecommunications and information Administration told Reuters, "Once the obligation ceiling is reached, the program will hold coupon requests until funds from unredeemed coupons become available. NTIA realizes that this would likely result in consumer confusion."

Rep. Ed Markey from Massachusetts said that he feels congress needs to quickly approve additional funding for the convertor coupon program.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Lots of FUD here...
By Reflex on 12/29/2008 3:01:46 PM , Rating: 5
The money being spent on this program is money that was recieved as part of the resale of the spectrum being freed up by the analog->digital conversion. It is not tax revenue, and it was created specifically as part of the conditions to reclaim that part of the spectrum. To not disperse it for this purpose would be illegal and a breach of their agreement with broadcasters, who were under NO obligation to give up the spectrum they already owned. The condition that was agreed upon was that the federal government would use a fraction of the money they made on this to make certain that no one would lose access to tv as a result of this changeover.

None of this came out of taxpayer pockets. None of this cost anyone anything. In fact, this actually MADE the government money. A *lot* of money.




RE: Lots of FUD here...
By mindless1 on 12/29/2008 3:52:46 PM , Rating: 2
The amazing part is you seem to be one of the few who understands this.


RE: Lots of FUD here...
By FITCamaro on 12/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: Lots of FUD here...
By Reflex on 12/29/2008 5:02:28 PM , Rating: 5
As I pointed out below, that is not the government's choice. The deal they made with broadcasters was that in exchange for giving up the spectrum they had absolute rights to the feds would use a portion of the money earned by confiscating and reselling that spectrum to guarantee access to the new spectrum for their existing customers.

The money to do this was earned by selling the reclaimed spectrum. In fact, they earned quite a bit more than this, tens of billions of dollars, of which only a tiny amount(around 5-10%) was spent sending out coupons for converter boxes.

Confiscating the spectrum and then refusing to honor the government's end of the deal would have been a breach of contract, resulted in massive legal liabilities, and likely halted the process altogether as broadcasters would have (rightfully and legally) refused to transition to the new spectrum as it would have likely cost them a significant number of their customer base. In the process the feds would have lost billions of dollars that they had earned by reselling that spectrum.

This was a win-win scenerio. The industry got a fairly painless transition to DTV, the government got to re-sell previously sold and now extremely valuable bandwidth at a premium price, and customers got a 'free' upgrade to a better quality broadcast without it costing them any money at any level.


RE: Lots of FUD here...
By Chocobollz on 12/30/2008 6:35:24 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, I completely agree with you. American Idol sucks big time. Japanese swimsuit idols is the way to go!

http://e.imagehost.org/0250/041.jpg


RE: Lots of FUD here...
By Dharl on 12/29/2008 5:07:17 PM , Rating: 2
My initial thoughts were... Spend more?! Spent 1.34 billion and wanting more!?

However, your comments here turned on a lightbulb that I had not thought of yet.

So... Reflex, Thank you for your comment. It helped to clear up my concerns and give answers to my own ignorance.


RE: Lots of FUD here...
By Shadowself on 12/29/2008 5:40:50 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
To not disperse it for this purpose would be illegal and a breach of their agreement with broadcasters, who were under NO obligation to give up the spectrum they already owned.


Actually the broadcasters don't own the spectrum and are under every obligation to release the spectrum when required to do so by the FCC.

Spectrum in the U.S. is licensed from the FCC/NTIA/ITU -- even satellite spectrum, and those licenses are for a finite period of time. While it is true that 99.99+% of the time the license is almost automatically extended for a given fee, the cognizant agency does not *have* to renew the license. In fact it wasn't until the late 90s that you could sell a license to spectrum to another commercial organization. Up until that time if you wanted the spectrum a company owned a license to you either 1) had to buy the company [or subsidiary that held the license], or 2) had to get the company to release the spectrum back to the cognizant agency and then apply for the license yourself.

quote:
None of this came out of taxpayer pockets. None of this cost anyone anything. In fact, this actually MADE the government money. A *lot* of money.


The U.S. Government has viewed the FCC as a revenue source since the 1993 DBS satellite spectrum auction in which the FCC netted about $1 billion in a single day. Since that time the U.S. congress has modified laws and the FCC has modified regulations that make getting new spectrum of any type a money making process for the U.S. Government.

And guess what? Virtually all of that goes into the general fund -- to be used on the war effort, to pay for highway construction, to be used for anything the U.S. Congress wants. The money going toward the vouchers is just one of a limited number of cases where auction money went toward users of the old spectrum. So claiming that it would be illegal to not fund every single person who wants a voucher has no basis in reality.


RE: Lots of FUD here...
By Reflex on 12/29/2008 5:59:21 PM , Rating: 2
Oh no doubt the FCC could have forced them to simply give up the spectrum, failing that congress could have passed a law. But it would have faced legal challenges and going that route would have cost everyone involved a lot of money. Why do that when the alternative is pretty much painless for everyone involved?

My point is that this was not tax revenue or money that could have been slated for other uses. It was a fund created specifically for smoothing this transition, and it had the positive effect of giving everyone what they wanted.


RE: Lots of FUD here...
By Shadowself on 12/29/2008 6:45:28 PM , Rating: 3
Actually there would have been no viable legal challenges. Might some of the broadcasters sued? Possibly, but they would have done so knowing they had effectively zero chance of winning. If the broadcasters had not come to the agreement several years ago, the FCC only needed to issue licenses for the analog spectrum that expired on a specific date. The FCC always held the trump card and the broadcasters new it.

The issue was when and how painless the change would be made. The original date for the transition was changed on more than one occasion finally settling on next February. The converter boxes were another change from the original transition ground rules. The FCC has no authority to expand the coupon system, and the U.S. congress does not have to expand it (or fund it) either.

The FCC made these changes based upon requests (and sometimes threats) from the U.S. congress. No viable threats were ever made by the broadcasters.

Do I believe that every person who has an analog TV should get help buying a converter box? Yes. Virtually 100% of them had nothing to do with what the FCC (and by proxy the U.S. congress) has mandated. There should not be a single 70+ year old individual on a fixed income watching their 20+ year old TV utilizing over the air signals that loses the ability to still watch OTA broadcasts.


RE: Lots of FUD here...
By Reflex on 12/29/2008 7:12:46 PM , Rating: 2
I don't really agree that there would be no viable legal remedy should the FCC have simply yanked the licenses, we are talking about 60+ year old licenses and business models that up until this point have required no real effort to maintain. I think a pretty solid court case could have been made that they had a valid expectation for that arrangement to be continued, especially since making an argument that this transition was necessary would be very difficult to manufacturer(its beneficial, to be certain, but hardly necessary).

But this is internet lawyering. On balance I agree with you and I think this has been handled very well so far and for the right reasons.


RE: Lots of FUD here...
By ebakke on 12/29/2008 8:59:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't really agree that there would be no viable legal remedy should the FCC have simply yanked the licenses
I didn't understand the argument to be: the FCC pulls active licenses. I understood it to be: the FCC does not renew any licenses after they expire. If the latter is what Shadowself was arguing, then he's absolutely correct. The companies would have no legal recourse to enforce their opinion that the FCC should've licensed it to them again.


RE: Lots of FUD here...
By Oregonian2 on 12/30/2008 3:01:31 AM , Rating: 2
I agree that it may seem that way, but it's been my observation that most anything is subject to lawsuits and like a lawyer once told me in a seminar: "being right only gets you maybe halfway there, at most". The government probably could revoke all drivers licenses for everyone in the country along with revoking every business license for every business in the country as well. But don't think they'd get away with that unscathed either.


RE: Lots of FUD here...
By ebakke on 12/30/2008 12:36:29 PM , Rating: 2
I hate to be a stickler, but it's not revocation. It's non-renewal. There is a pretty substantial difference between the two.


RE: Lots of FUD here...
By foolsgambit11 on 12/29/2008 7:40:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
broadcasters ... were under NO obligation to give up the spectrum they already owned.
That's incorrect. The broadcasters don't own the air waves. They belong to the United States, and are administered by the people, via the federal government, using the institution established for that purpose, the Federal Communications Commission. The FCC licenses, for limited times (up to 8 years), portions of the EM spectrum for communications, like TV. There is no guarantee that the license will be renewed. To quote Wikipedia, 'broadcast licenses are to be renewed if the station meets the "public interest, convenience, or necessity."' And since it was in the public interest to switch to digital television, no deal was necessary to get broadcasters to 'give up the spectrum they already owned'. Additionally, the FCC has the right to regulate broadcast format requirements, forcing those interested in providing televised over-the-air content to switch to digital broadcasting. And since the switch to DTV has been planned since the late 1990's, the FCC has been able to renew licenses such that they expire on or before February 19, 2009.

So no deal was necessary. Now, the FCC was generous enough to give away the digital TV spectrum to previous owners of analog licenses (they could have auctioned it if they wanted, resulting in more government revenue). And Congress was generous enough to allocate money for digital converter boxes for owners of analog televisions.

Additionally, your argument that this money isn't tax revenue is a half-truth. While the money allocated is less than the revenue from the sale of spectrum (making the spectrum sale a net earner for the government), that doesn't mean that it doesn't cost me anything. If all of the money from the sale of freed spectrum (and heck, while we're at it, from a sale of the DTV stations if that had happened) had gone into the government's coffers, that would have helped reduce the deficit, and thus lessen my future tax burden. So while it may not be the taxes I paid this year that are financing these coupons, I will have to pay the cost eventually - and with interest.


RE: Lots of FUD here...
By Reflex on 12/30/2008 11:54:41 AM , Rating: 2
Digital broadcasts can be made on any spectrum, including the existing one. The point was not to move customers from analog to digital, it was to move them from very desireable areas of the spectrum to less desireable ones, freeing up the existing spectrum for auction. While it may be technically true that the FCC could revoke or refuse to renew existing licenses without any compensation whatsoever, the reality is that that never would have happened, congressmen from every state with any stake in broadcasting would have blocked the FCC from such a maneuver, and lawsuits would have proliferated.

Your logic on taxes is convoluted. While it is technically true that if they had illegally kept that money it would reduce the deficit, it is also true that if they chose to remove the mortgage interest deduction that they could use that money to reduce the deficit, and as such you are paying for that deduction in your future tax burden. It is true that you are paying a certain percentage of your income right now, but if you were paying 5% more, you could reduce your future tax burden. One can look at any tax structure and say it in some way could be different to reduce your future burden.

But as I pointed out, the money made by the re-sale of the current spectrum would not have been available had they not made an agreement to use a portion of those funds for converter boxes, and thus by making this agreement the government already did reduce your future tax burden.


RE: Lots of FUD here...
By foolsgambit11 on 12/30/2008 4:55:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
While it is technically true that if they had illegally kept that money it would reduce the deficit
Stop saying illegally. Even if there was a backroom deal with the broadcasters, there was no contract with them. Please show one shred of proof that it would be illegal for the U.S. government to not spend money on DTV converter boxes.

Additionally, you're point is quite correct - any reduction in government expenditure would reduce the future tax burden. Which is why the government should not be in the habit of giving things away recklessly. (Of course, all of us would define appropriate and inappropriate government spending differently. But the point of whether the government had to spend this money is separate from whether they should have spent this money.)

And finally, the DTV spectrum is a subset of the old analog TV stations. While you could dig up arguments regarding possible interference on some of the new channels from leakage or background noise, I doubt you have specifics on this, since you apparently didn't even know that (not to mention the fact that digital channels are less affected by interference than analog). And the reason there was spectrum to offer up for auction (and the reason for the transition in the first place) was that digital broadcasts are more bandwidth efficient. Not to mention the fact that the broadcasters were behind the switch to begin with, since it allowed them to broadcast in higher definition and with more content. Congress never would have started the push to switch to DTV (way back in 1996) if it hadn't been for industry pressure.


RE: Lots of FUD here...
By Reflex on 12/31/2008 1:00:05 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Stop saying illegally. Even if there was a backroom deal with the broadcasters, there was no contract with them. Please show one shred of proof that it would be illegal for the U.S. government to not spend money on DTV converter boxes.


When congress legislated this it included provisions for transitioning older customers with converter boxes. Had they simply kept that money without changing the law that enabled this transition, that would have been illegal. The agreement was a compromise, like most legislation, and there was nothing 'backroom' about it.

quote:
Additionally, you're point is quite correct - any reduction in government expenditure would reduce the future tax burden. Which is why the government should not be in the habit of giving things away recklessly. (Of course, all of us would define appropriate and inappropriate government spending differently. But the point of whether the government had to spend this money is separate from whether they should have spent this money.)


Without this agreement it is unlikely that the legislation required to mandate the switch would have ever passed congress. Without that passage, the federal government would have lost out on tens of billions of dollars that were made from the re-sale of existing frequency. In other words, without this deal it would have been a net loss for the federal coffers.

quote:
And finally, the DTV spectrum is a subset of the old analog TV stations. While you could dig up arguments regarding possible interference on some of the new channels from leakage or background noise, I doubt you have specifics on this, since you apparently didn't even know that (not to mention the fact that digital channels are less affected by interference than analog). And the reason there was spectrum to offer up for auction (and the reason for the transition in the first place) was that digital broadcasts are more bandwidth efficient. Not to mention the fact that the broadcasters were behind the switch to begin with, since it allowed them to broadcast in higher definition and with more content. Congress never would have started the push to switch to DTV (way back in 1996) if it hadn't been for industry pressure.

This is patently false. Spectrum does not determine whether something is analog or digital, you can broadcast in either method on any frequency you choose. In fact, the existing frequency is more desireable as it has better broadcast charactoristics(both in range and ability to pass through objects), and the broadcasters have a larger slice in the existing spectrum than they are recieving in the new spectrum. All of the benefits of digital you list exist in existing spectrum, and in fact in some markets the VHF frequencies will still be used by a few broadcasters for DTV.

The push here was by the FCC, who saw a gold mine in re-selling existing frequencies for newer technologies, but had to find a way to get a sixty plus year industry off of those frequencies. The compromise reached turned out to be fairly good for everyone involved.


RE: Lots of FUD here...
By Spectator on 12/30/2008 2:20:13 PM , Rating: 2
lol. Come live here in UK.

we have to buy hardware ourselves that takes us to digital (freeview).

Then the channel makers put out HD channels. yaay? NO. you have to buy new hardware and need a sat dish to get free HD channels :(.

All the while. the "BBC" protected by law(pay or prison). reap 6 Bil pounds a year.

Its more fun over here honest :P


Who is
By Soldier38 on 12/29/2008 9:40:41 PM , Rating: 2
Who is buying the boxes, just make the jump to hdtv jeez. Ive had HD since 2004 so get with the program people!




RE: Who is
By FITCamaro on 12/30/2008 8:13:35 AM , Rating: 1
People don't even have to go to HD. Almost any TV built in the past 10 years has a digital tuner.


RE: Who is
By Spivonious on 12/30/2008 10:22:30 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know where you're buying TVs, but as little as 5 years ago it was hard to find a TV with a built-in digital tuner, even HDTVs.


Whoa, what a surprise
By grenableu on 12/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: Whoa, what a surprise
By RU482 on 12/29/2008 2:22:00 PM , Rating: 2
I can top that...I read an article that said some government official (can't remember if it was a senator or rep) from South Dakota wants to delay the Feb transition, because he feels some of his constituents aren't ready for the change over.


TV is a necessity
By japlha on 12/29/2008 2:23:41 PM , Rating: 2
The powers-that-be don't want people to stop watching tv. Imagine what would happen if those who can't afford $40 for a converter without some lame rebate stops watching tv?
They might actually start thinking for themselves then there could be problems.




1 Billlllllllllllllllllllllllllioooon Dollars!
By MrX8503 on 12/29/08, Rating: 0
By Spivonious on 12/30/2008 10:20:54 AM , Rating: 2
Since the total federal budget for 2008 is $2.9 trillion, I think $1.3 billion is okay to spend on the coupons. That's only .04% of the budget.


I guess my parents were right
By Darkk on 12/29/2008 9:57:56 PM , Rating: 2
I've been told sitting in front of the TV for hours on end makes you stupid to a certain degree. I guess after reading these posts my parents were right.

You need to watch LESS TV!!!




using OTA broadcasts
By noCable on 12/30/2008 12:02:40 AM , Rating: 2
I know this is hard to believe but there are those of us who need OTA signals Cable or satelite would cost $. We need to save that $50/mo to make ends meet. And yes it's nice that I had to only pay $20 instead of $60 to get a converter box. And no I'm not 60 or 70.




Should've never existed
By FITCamaro on 12/29/08, Rating: -1
RE: Should've never existed
By fishbits on 12/29/2008 2:12:03 PM , Rating: 1
Amen. And it's not like this is out of the blue. You had to have been milking the same ancient TV for 15-20+ years, without having been able to save up a tiny bit of money during the loooong run-up to the digital transfer. There's money being tight, and then there's making the choice to be cripplingly miserly.


RE: Should've never existed
By Bender 123 on 12/29/2008 2:20:36 PM , Rating: 4
Sometimes its not the money, its the FUD being spun by cable companies and satellite. Charter, nuff said, sent out a rep to my Grandparents condo, after they called with questions. The rep stormed in and said they would need to upgrade to digital TV service before Feb or they would not be able to get their shows.

It took me two hours deprogramming them, to realize they dont need a box, because they already have cable.

And, BTW, they have milked their TV for a long time, but in that age group, a TV was/is a major purchase. Not at all like most of us think, anymore. They dont really care about watching Wheel of Fortune in HD.


RE: Should've never existed
By jkresh on 12/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: Should've never existed
By amanojaku on 12/29/2008 3:24:14 PM , Rating: 2
If I understand correctly digital cable means one of three things:

1) The signal from the cable company to your box is digital, but the signal from your box to the TV is analog. Most cable subscribers have this today because it's been in place for years. If you've ever seen a blocky image that means your signal is digital somewhere. My mom's TV is analog, but the box gets a digital signal, as evidenced by the MPEG artifacts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_television_in_t...

2) The signal from the cable company to your box is digital, and the signal from your box to the TV is digital. This is better than option 1 because you can get HDTV. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_television_in_t...

3) The signal from the cable company to your TV is digital, which is processed internally. Ideally, this is the best option because you have one less piece of equipment to plug in, and you don't have to return the non-existent box if you move to another provider. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CableCard

So you're correct in saying the Charter story needs to be clarified.


RE: Should've never existed
By joex444 on 12/29/2008 4:03:30 PM , Rating: 2
We're *not* talking digital cable here, though. We're talking DTV, and I don't mean HDTV either.

DTV is simply a way for an OTA channel (PBS, ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, UPN, CW, PAX) to broadcast an electromagnetic signal to a consumer who can receive the signal via antenna. An analog only TV attached to an antenna and limited to these broadcasts will not receive any channels in February 2009.

A cable company has antennas -- this is how they receive these channels. If you notice the cable channels from further away don't look that great on cable (as an example, an independent channel from NH is available on cable and I am in southern MA, it doesn't come in crystal clear like cable channels do, but is fuzzy like a rabbit ear setup would pickup). Now, the antennas a cable company has are particularly good and this is why you may not notice such things. What they will do in Feb 2009 is, like everyone else, take the DTV signals they receive from their antennas and redistribute them to the consumers.

For consumers with analog cable, they convert the DTV signal into analog (but notice this is one conversion, from DTV to analog; not analog-> DTV -> analog), and send that. Why? All the cable boxes they have deployed are all receiving analog input for channels 2-99. It's the higher numbered channels that may be part of digital cable, which is of course a digital signal up to the cable box. The RF output on the cable box is *always* analog, even on the digital cable channels the box serves as a digital cable -> analog converter. It's only on the HDMI output of a box that you can receive any digital transmissions all the way.

So I disagree, I believe that "digital cable" refers to a set of channels which are transmitted to the consumer digitally. The remaining channels are still sent via analog (channels 2-99). Digital cable has nothing whatsoever to do with HDTV. And TVs that are DTV ready still have analog tuners inside so that this switch is essentially seamless (or at the most, you need to split the cable signal and run one RF cable to DTV input and one to Analog input).


RE: Should've never existed
By theapparition on 12/30/2008 11:58:42 AM , Rating: 2
Well, you are only half correct.

Most cable companies send part analog, part digital signals over the same line. The "Digital" cable boxes receive both these signals and pass the analog channels through. Easiest test for this is to plug any old television in and see if it can tune in. If so, then they are still transmitting an analog signal, exactly as you described.

However, Cable Co's desperatly want to shut down the analog signals, and many are doing so now, and ALL have plans to in the near future. For example, FIOS (in my area) has completly shut down any analog signals. You need a box or a digital adapter on each TV. Comcast has begun fazed analog shutdowns as well. Time Warner and Charter may be doing this as well. The OP is completly correct saying that more info is needed.

When the cable companies are severly bandwidth limited as they are, and all of a sudden they can cram 4x SD stations as the number of analog stations, you can easily see why they are so hot to do this.


RE: Should've never existed
By omnicronx on 12/29/2008 3:44:02 PM , Rating: 3
Your cable company has no control over what is going to happen Feb 2009. The channels themselves will cease broadcasting the analogue signal OTA, it has nothing to do with cable or satellite companies.


RE: Should've never existed
By Shadowself on 12/29/2008 6:57:46 PM , Rating: 2
I don't have time to look up the FCC Order right now, but over a year ago the FCC issued an Order (or maybe it was a Ruling) that required cable companies to maintain their analog signals until something like 2010 or 2011.

It made no sense to me at the time, but I distinctly remember the Order or Ruling. It does require the cable companies to keep inefficient analog bandwidth going that they could utilize for other tasks, and it seemed unfair to require them to keep the analog channels going when the over the air guys were going digital.

The ONLY rationale I could come up with is that if the cable guys go 100% digital then those people with early "cable ready" TVs that could directly receive an analog cable signal would now need to buy a converter box too -- yet this one would have to be from the cable company as the cable companies don't use the same modulation and error correction schemes as the over the air guys. Thus this would force a subset of the population from being able to have no box then having to buy a box from their cable company that the coupon system would not cover.

The Order or Ruling said something like: if a cable company had, at that time, analog channels then they needed to maintain a certain number of those channels until 2010 or 2011. I don't remember how many channels or the exact termination date. I'm sure if you're curious you can search the FCC's site and find the Order or Ruling and get the details.


RE: Should've never existed
By theapparition on 12/30/2008 12:06:43 PM , Rating: 2
No,
The order required cable companies to provide service to people with older analog TV's. Not that they had to provide an analog signal. Slight distinction.

That's why when FIOS shut down all analog channels, they were required to provide digital adapters at no cost.


RE: Should've never existed
By Hiawa23 on 12/29/2008 7:16:39 PM , Rating: 2
who are still using rabbit ears? I thought all homes had cable or satellite.


RE: Should've never existed
By Mitch101 on 12/29/2008 3:32:17 PM , Rating: 2
Angry customer sues Time Warner over forced cable box rental
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080814-angr...

I have a feeling they will win the lawsuit after all you can buy your cable modem to save the rental fees so why not the cable boxes?


RE: Should've never existed
By FITCamaro on 12/29/2008 4:16:52 PM , Rating: 1
Well on that matter, I don't think a company should be forced to sell a product they don't want to. Otherwise you'll start having lawsuits of car manufacturers of "why don't you sell this car when you can make it?".


RE: Should've never existed
By fishbits on 12/29/2008 4:01:46 PM , Rating: 2
"They dont really care about watching Wheel of Fortune in HD"

When did I mention HD? All I said is that a household ought to be able to buy a convertor by now if they need one.

"they dont need a box, because they already have cable"

So they're currently digital ready, which is where I said they should be.

If you want to talk about the cable company pressuring for sales, and the merits of HD upgrades, feel free. But don't pretend to be refuting things that I never said in order to do so.


RE: Should've never existed
By Bender 123 on 12/29/2008 5:32:16 PM , Rating: 2
The point is that you are correct...
They dont want a new TV (try buying one not HD...)
And they have cable, so its a non-issue.

Its the FUD that's confusing to many people. And the companies are jumping all over the people that just don't get it.

I can imagine the best buy folks pressuring a person like my grandparents into buying a new TV, because of the whole digital thing.

Nobody doubted what you said, but there are some that are not as tech savvy as people that post on Daily Tech.


RE: Should've never existed
By Gyres01 on 12/29/2008 5:48:42 PM , Rating: 2
Has anyone told joe the consumer that many TV's have had digital tuners for years now and maybe he should check it out instead of crying wolf about not getting a rebate coupon !


RE: Should've never existed
By amanojaku on 12/29/2008 2:54:12 PM , Rating: 2
The reason for the coupon is simple: people with analog TVs are being forced to switch to digital if they want to continue watching OTA broadcasts. If both were available and there was a choice then I would be pissed at the coupons. I'm amazed at the number of TVs out there that still use OTA signals, but cable doesn't exist everywhere for various reasons.

A comparison could be made with cell phones; you'd be pissed if your carrier decided to go from CDMA to HSPA or UTMS, forcing you to buy another phone when your original phone might have worked just fine for you.


RE: Should've never existed
By omnicronx on 12/29/2008 3:13:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A comparison could be made with cell phones; you'd be pissed if your carrier decided to go from CDMA to HSPA or UTMS, forcing you to buy another phone when your original phone might have worked just fine for you.
Difference being, you are not paying for the service. TV stations pay to transmit the signal to you, not the other way around.

My question is, how many people bought these boxes to have them not work, or get a fraction of the channels they originally received? DTV is all or nothing, there is none of this previous business where you could receive 50% of the signal and having some static, but you can still see the picture. DTV signals also gets terrible mulipath issues when the signal passes through walls. Where I previously could get 3-4 analogue channels from 60+ miles away with bunny ears, I can now only get 3-4 channels with a large antennae on my roof. Hopefully when the switch occurs and DTV channels shift to the lower end VHF signals, things will get better.


RE: Should've never existed
By KC7SWH on 12/29/2008 3:51:30 PM , Rating: 2
My neighbor bought one of the boxes and we live in a fringe area (no straight line of sight) and they don't get jack with it. I got tired of the crappy analog signal and went with limited basic cable years ago (with the $10 discount for my high speed internet it was only an additional $4 per month (now $7)).


RE: Should've never existed
By Hay You on 12/29/2008 11:31:23 PM , Rating: 1
Alas, I'm one of those "fringe" folk who is currently receiving eleven analog TV channels. Admittedly several are marginal reception but still watchable.

I bought my two digital converter boxes–for my three TV sets–when the cupons first started arriving.

With the new and improved digital signal I can now receive 1–count em ONE–channel and that only during good weather.

Not to bother all you folks with questions regarding Senator John McCain and president Bill Clinton's economic stimulus program requiring a major portion of the population to spend some hundreds of dollars a year to watch the same commercials they get free now, by purchasing either cable (John McCain's baby IF it's available in their neighborhood) or satellite service if cable isn't an option...may I ask when the government program to assist home owners and apartment dwellers nationwide with buying new and rotatable antenna systems will start.

At last look, the average household (with children) had three TV sets. The reason the government only issued two cards per household perhaps? Should the kids wish to watch something different from that of their parents, they will now be required to have their own antenna system and that too will needless require a rotor and associated wiring.

There's also the unmentioned cost of paying someone to climb up on your roof to install the news system(s) or the added cost of homeowners insurance do to the increased risk of lightening strike and/or injury caused by falling antennas.

A rather unscientific survey of local television broadcasters has shown that only one is giving even passing attention to the fact that households which can now receive their signal clearly (good old analog) may find the new improved digital signal falling short.

One local broadcaster claims they have increased the power of their digital transmission to 1,000,000 watts...up from the 100,000 they use to broadcast the analog signal. Even with that massive increase in power output, the fundamental characteristics of UHF signals makes it impossible to reach those areas formerly referred to as the "fringe area". Simple things like trees (especially when the leaves are wet) block the signal completely as do tall buildings and passing airplanes and those pesky things commonly known as hills and mountains.

Speaking of "fringe areas", has anyone any idea how the broadcasters determine what areas are in fact fringe areas? Way back when TV was new the stations would send out a truck with antennas and actually measure the signal strength at various locations.

Now those same broadcasters use a computer model. A model which assumes an antenna height of 30 feet above ground level. Why thirty feet?, you may well ask but the answer is simple. That's just six feet above the average stick built homes roof. Way back before digital buying a six foot antenna mast was easy and inexpensive. With digital revolution the only masts I can find for sale are little 18 - 24 inch things.

And what about the dozen or so folks who live in anything smaller than the average stick built home with its gabled roof...say a mobile home or the ubiquitous western ranch style home with their flat roofs?

Ah...progress. Then again there's still AM radio.


RE: Should've never existed
By Spivonious on 12/30/2008 10:17:04 AM , Rating: 2
Have you tried aiming the antenna? Digital broadcasts are more focused than analog, and you'll have to point the antenna at the source of the signal. At my house I get fuzzy reception of about 4 channels with an analog tuner and rabbit ears, but clear reception of about 10 channels with a digital tuner and rabbit ears.


RE: Should've never existed
By ebakke on 12/29/2008 4:25:01 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
A comparison could be made with cell phones; you'd be pissed if your carrier decided to go from CDMA to HSPA or UTMS, forcing you to buy another phone when your original phone might have worked just fine for you.
You mean when AT&T switched from TDMA to GSM and "forced" all of their customers to buy new phones? Actually, that's exactly what happened with cell phones and those who could afford the luxury of a new cell phone bought one. Those who couldn't stopped receiving service. Spending money is always worse than not spending money, but that's the way it goes.

I don't expect the government to cut me a check for the increase in monthly costs for any of my necessities. Why should they cut a check for the increase in cost for my luxuries? I expect more people would be crying foul if the plan was to give the nation $40 off a DVD player because VHS has been replaced.


RE: Should've never existed
By abscoder on 12/29/2008 3:00:09 PM , Rating: 3
Whoa. Fit only considering himself and his own situation? Shocker! hehe


RE: Should've never existed
By mindless1 on 12/29/2008 3:59:57 PM , Rating: 2
See Reflex's comment, possibly you will learn something.

Here's clue #2: IF it were coming out of my taxes instead of the situation Reflex mentioned, it would be ridiculous for you to suggest I shouldn't get something out of those taxes. Do your taxes pay for anything you find useful? Of course they do, as should everyone else's. Basically you are suggesting you should get to decide what everyone else gets for their money. Run for president.


RE: Should've never existed
By FITCamaro on 12/29/2008 4:29:39 PM , Rating: 3
I am well aware of where the money for these vouchers came from. It still doesn't make it right to use government funds so that people can watch TV. You do not have the god given right to watch TV. It is a luxury.

If it's ok to give vouchers for this, if the government make gas $6 a gallon through high fuel taxes to further their environmental agenda, can I get a voucher to help me buy gas for my V8 because I wasn't given a choice of what to pay for gas? No. So why should people be given money so they can watch TV?

I am not suggesting I get to decide anything. I am suggesting our government stop its downward spiral into socialism and that people stop feeling that they are entitled to things.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal responsibility, always followed by a dictatorship."

–John Tyler, in his 1770 book, “Cycle of Democracy”

We've arrived at that time. Now it's just a matter of time before we fall unless something changes.


RE: Should've never existed
By Reflex on 12/29/2008 4:57:27 PM , Rating: 2
It is not government funds. It is industry funds. The industry relinquished their rights to existing spectrum and purchased new spectrum on the condition that a fraction of the money used would be utilized to guarantee access to the frequencies their existing spectrum were moved to.

The broadcasters in effect paid for this, not the US government, and not US taxpayers. To effectively 'steal' this money by appropriating it for other purposes would be not only immoral, but likely illegal.


RE: Should've never existed
By foolsgambit11 on 12/29/2008 8:01:47 PM , Rating: 2
Explain to me where you get this idea that the industry has 'rights' to spectrum indefinitely. They have rights for a period of up to 8 years, after which they have to request renewal of their license to broadcast. Now, granted, I'm not certain how the FCC handled license renewal earlier this decade, when they knew the transition to DTV was coming. They could have renewed all licenses for a year or two each time, to ensure that they could swiftly effect a transition once Congress decided to set a date. After all, broadcasters have been busy building digital transmission stations for a decade or so now. So a short renewal period ensures they could force broadcasters to stop using the analog spectrum whenever they wanted.

So if you're going to argue that the industry relinquished their rights to spectrum, please give a concrete example of a broadcaster whose license was/will be revoked in violation of applicable regulations.

And I don't see how you can say the broadcasters paid for this - they got new digital channel spectrum for free. Every owner of an analog TV channel license was given a digital TV block license. The auction was for the spectrum that was freed because of the transition, and it would no more be stealing to use it for other purposes than to use money from drilling rights auctions for other purposes. There is no FCC 'lock box', where funds generated by the FCC could only be used for FCC-related items.

Where are you getting your ideas of how this transition was planned and executed, anyway?


RE: Should've never existed
By Darkefire on 12/29/2008 5:09:33 PM , Rating: 2
Did you even read his comment? Dispersing the money to consumers is part of the agreement with broadcasters, since it came from the resale of the spectrum that they willingly gave up. These are not "government funds," this is money they are essentially holding in escrow for redistribution to the American people for their televisions, since it cannot legally be used for anything else. That is not socialism. Using these funds for anything other than the agreed-upon purpose, however, is most definitely socialism since it is taking money from private sector and using it for public services.

And did you really just throw that quote in over a discussion about TV vouchers? This is not the freaking Continental Congress, step off the soap box already. The American people will vote for what the American people want, and part of being a citizen is realizing that compromise is a necessary part of any government. You don't like it, you vote. If that's not enough, you take an active role in your government. And if that's still not enough, you can move to a cave in the woods and rule over the woodland creatures, who won't complain if you keep all the nuts you gathered for yourself. It does make you a royal tool if you kick the hungry squirrels back out into the dead of winter, though.


RE: Should've never existed
By foolsgambit11 on 12/29/2008 8:09:40 PM , Rating: 2
Did you even fact check his comment?

These are government funds. They were raised from the auction of government assets. When the government is running a deficit, and it spends money that could have gone to balancing the budget, that's going to affect my tax burden in the future.

As for taking money from the private sector and using it for public services - that's not socialism. Otherwise, corporate taxes would be socialism, too. Paying for goods and services, even if the purveyor is the government, is not socialism. People here need to understand that big government, in and of itself, is not socialist. If you're against big government, say that. Don't conflate that with socialism, though.


"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken











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