Senate passes bill to delay digital TV switch

[Anthony P]

PS don't get me wrong, if there was a real reason and time would be needed then postpone it, one date is just as good as an other. The issue is that "not ready but three months will make a difference" and "it has developed last minute" make it a joke. Anyone (be it transmitter or receiver) could have started 3 months earlier if it was needed.

[Sir Terrence]

Originally Posted by saprano

Terrence, you dont think the "next guy" and everyone else didn't have enough time to get ready for this? i dont understand what 3 extra months is going to do, its going to be the samething, alot of people still aren't going to be ready. what then? funny thing is my grandmother knew about this for a long time. at first she would always bother me about why her tv is not going to work, and what does she need. i explained everything to her, she stll was kind of confused but once they started advertising it on tv everyday she understood. she was planning on getting verizon soon, i guess she's going to be happy after i tell her the news.

That is your grandmother, and quite frankly she has you to help her out. Others do not have the benefit of neither the money, nor the help. After sitting on the phone lines of the shut down test and hearing the pains the elderly are going through, my perspective was drastically changed. One day alot of folks here are going to get old and feeble, and drastic changes will happen in their lives, and they will regret the day they were completely insensitive to the elderly when they were younger. We walk all over our elderly folks without a care about them, and it is a damn shame.

[saprano]

Im not saying i dont care about the elderly and the effect this is going to have on them. i just dont see what 3 months is going to do, the same problems we have now i bet were going to have in june.

[reiella]

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence

Bobby,
Many TV stations are not ready either. My close friend is the Director of Engineering for a ABC owned station in San Francisco. She says all of the ABC owned station have significant blackout areas within the broadcast region. They have not had suffiencient time to work out how to get a signal to these "blacked out" areas. The last analog shut off test they did caused had so many issues that the callers overloaded the phone system which knocked it completely out.

Fun sidenote too, the delays aren't help the matter either for others. A market in wichita [I think, been a day or two since I've read the article to be honest] won't be able to deploy their digital service past 5feet until they get another reciever from a station in El Paso, that's using it for analog transmission currently [cutting a bit close maybe, but it is a relatively small market area, I was shaking my head at the story myself].

Similarly so, the companies that are prepared and have their two transmitters setup currently [or even 'on time' come Feburary] end up either running two, or just running one with the digital at greatly diminished strength. Which is part of the black-out problems.

I think the bulk of the problem with the coupons occured when the fcc underestimated how many people would request a box that didn't need one. After all, whose one to pass up effectively free electronics. And of course the folks who just really didn't know better. I know a few folks who insisted on getting a HDTV because they wanted to be able to watch their cable after Feburary. It's ok that they don't really understand, and I can't blame them especially given how the media coverage of the event was originally.

Majority of stations do want the transition to happen [so they can stop powering two transmiters ].

[Sir Terrence]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

PS don't get me wrong, if there was a real reason and time would be needed then postpone it, one date is just as good as an other. The issue is that "not ready but three months will make a difference" and "it has developed last minute" make it a joke. Anyone (be it transmitter or receiver) could have started 3 months earlier if it was needed.

Three months gives broadcasters time to do more testing. Three months will give time for the digital antennae to be properly installed in its permanent place(as opposed to the temporary places there at now and I am speaking of SF). Three months will give the broadcasters time to find "black hole" areas, and install repeaters to help pull in the signals. Three months will give somebody who is totally confused a chance to get things straightened out. In SF, we have not done nearly the amount of testing that needs to be done. Alot of the stations had their plans in the city council early last year, and they sat on them bickering amoungst each other of petty crap. Any amount of additional time will help everyone work out the kinks, and there sure alot to work out.

[J6P]

Thanks for sharing a bit of the behind-the-scenes perspective here, Terrence. Very informative.

[Bobby Henderson]

Originally Posted by Sir Terrance

Many TV stations are not ready either. My close friend is the Director of Engineering for a ABC owned station in San Francisco. She says all of the ABC owned station have significant blackout areas within the broadcast region.

Lots of TV broadcasting markets have areas where reception is bad or non-existent, even for the existing analog signals running at full power. In my viewing market there's numerous areas that don't get good OTA TV signal coverage. People living in those areas are stuck with getting cable or satellite TV.

Originally Posted by Sir Terrance

It was estimated that in the SF area, about 70-100,000 people would lose their signal entirely, and that is for ABC viewers alone, not to mention the other 7 stations that broadcast off of the same tower. That is a significant chunk of revenue lost because the FCC and the SF city council dragged their feet through this conversion. The city council of SF just approved the antennae changes on the broadcast tower TWO WEEKS AGO!!!

Why are all those stations broadcasting from just one tower?

I live in a much smaller TV broadcast DMA (Wichita Falls, TX - Lawton, OK). Like so many small markets with huge areas of rural landscape to cover the local TV stations often have to install signal repeating transponders in other counties to improve the coverage of their signal across the viewing market. Why aren't the stations in San Francisco doing this to reach those hard to cover areas? It sounds like there is more than enough viewers in those blackout areas to justify the cost of some signal repeaters.

The San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose megalopolis is by far one of the most populous, not to mention most affluent, areas in the nation. It's one of the top 10 TV viewing markets in the US. It would seem like those stations would have had more resources to get their DTV situation properly addressed and have it done at a far earlier date.

Instead, it sounds to me like some little TV stations out here "in the sticks" have been better prepared for the Feb. 17 deadline than network owned TV stations in the cosmopolitan world city of San Francisco.

The only excuse I see for Bay Area TV stations not being ready is signal interference between numerous analog and DTV signals crowding the broadcast spectrum. However, those big TV stations have more resources available to get organized collectively so they can all do their various changes in broadcast channel assignments and power levels without jamming the broadcasts of each other.

Originally Posted by Sir Terrance

Here in the bay area, I know of no station that has gone to full DTV power, or had any plans on going full power before the analog cut off date.

That only makes TV stations in San Francisco seem like they didn't have good long term planning. Our local NBC station is running its DTV signal at full power and the FOX affiliate will change its DTV signal to full power during the first week in February. The engineers at those stations found it more prudent to go full power early rather than wait until the last minute to discover any possible bugs in running the signals at full power.

Originally Posted by Sir Terrance

The only station I heard complaining about this change is the PBS stations here.

PBS relies heavily on public funding and has a very tight budget. It's estimated that PBS stations across the country could lose $22 million over extra utilities costs if they had to continue powering both analog and digital signals until June. Some stations are simply not going to be able to do that.

Originally Posted by Sir Terrance

Nobody wants to lose viewers, especially now that advertising revenue has taken such a hit.

I think that concern is trumped by the giant-sized electric bills that would come from powering analog and DTV signals simultaneously, especially if both are run at full power. Additionally, the viewing demographic advertisers are trying to reach have been prepared for the DTV change. Viewers in low income brackets and elderly viewers account for most of the estimated 6.5 million people not yet ready for the switch.

[Sir Terrence]

Originally Posted by reiella

Fun sidenote too, the delays aren't help the matter either for others. A market in wichita [I think, been a day or two since I've read the article to be honest] won't be able to deploy their digital service past 5feet until they get another reciever from a station in El Paso, that's using it for analog transmission currently [cutting a bit close maybe, but it is a relatively small market area, I was shaking my head at the story myself].

We have two small station here with the same problem. One is setting in a bowl that analog signals are easy to transmit out of. When they went to digital, they discovered the bowl they're in cut their coverage area by three quarters. Financially, that is going to kill them. They end up relocating their tower away from their station to increase their coverage area. You just don't know these things until you really test them out thoroughly.

Similarly so, the companies that are prepared and have their two transmitters setup currently [or even 'on time' come Feburary] end up either running two, or just running one with the digital at greatly diminished strength. Which is part of the black-out problems.

Unlike analog antennaes, digital antennae do not broadcast their signal in a full omnidirection way. They have some "holes" in their broadcast stream that will remain holes even at full strength. Here in the bay area all of the stations did a simultaneous full shut analog shut off, and full digital power up, and there were still significant "holes" all over the bay area. So signal strength and power are not the issue, it is something else completely.

I think the bulk of the problem with the coupons occured when the fcc underestimated how many people would request a box that didn't need one. After all, whose one to pass up effectively free electronics. And of course the folks who just really didn't know better. I know a few folks who insisted on getting a HDTV because they wanted to be able to watch their cable after Feburary. It's ok that they don't really understand, and I can't blame them especially given how the media coverage of the event was originally.

Majority of stations do want the transition to happen [so they can stop powering two transmiters ].

I am afraid you are dead wrong on the last point. The latest issue of Broadcast magazine pointed out a survey of over 5,000 stations. Over 80% wanted more time to test their signals over their current broadcast areas. Over 65% reported significant "black hole" areas in their coverage areas. That same article stated that quite a few stations had budgeted to run both digital and analog for all of 2009 just in case something happens to prevent the switch over. My friend told me that any Director of Engineering that didn't make contingency budget plans through 2009 is a fool. Everyone one of the majors that she has spoken to has made those plans, including a few very small stations. Alot of advertising revenue is on the line here, if significant amounts of people cannot get a digital signal, it will plow a hole into what stations can charge for advertising. With advertising revenue already significantly down, that would be suicide.

Everyone seems to think that just because they are okay with their new (or older) DTV's that everyone should be. Imagine if you had a brand new DTV, and was sitting smack dab in the middle of a digital black hole, and couldn't get a signal no matter what you did, and it was totally out of your control. Could you make the arguement that everyone had plenty of time then? What if it cost the TV station a great deal of money to fix your problem, and they didn't have it in their budget. Would you say everyone had enough time?

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence

Imagine if you had a brand new DTV, and was sitting smack dab in the middle of a digital black hole, and couldn't get a signal no matter what you did, and it was totally out of your control. Could you make the arguement that everyone had plenty of time then? What if it cost the TV station a great deal of money to fix your problem, and they didn't have it in their budget. Would you say everyone had enough time?

Sorry, but you speak as if the person has an inherent RIGHT to receive an OTA signal. Why in the world would the TV station HAVE to spend one cent in order to give this individual reception? I've lived in several areas where I was not able to get a clear signal from some stations. You know what I did? I paid for cable/satellite in order to get reception.

You've made some compelling arguments, but to imply that somehow people have a right to receive an OTA TV signal is not a valid one IMO.

[DIY_HD]

As I said in a previous post, I am sympathetic to the elderly who are bewildered by all this tech stuff and are without the help or means to change. However, I am not sympathetic to broadcasters and the remainder of the OTA viewers. The broadcasters have known about this for, what, over 5 years now? I suspect it has more to do with capitalizing the improvements than resolving all the technical issues. If you had to invest $500,000 on a new transmitter, etc, would you do it two years early, or wait till the last minute when you absolutely had to have it?

We all live our lives by the calendar. Sometimes there are legitimate reasons for postponing things. However, I have a hard time believing a 3-year extension was not enough. I find it easier to believe that the transition will never occur and all those who invested in hardware to prepare for this will be getting the shaft.

I thought we needed that bandwidth for other things like emergency services and cell phone communications. If we need a freeway, we rip out what's there and build it. Some people have to move, other people are inconvenienced, but it is all for the greater good. I suppose it's to be expected. Construction projects often are not completed on time.

Here's an idea. If we all ditch the dish or cable, we can spend the money on more BDs!!!

[caliblue15]

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

Sorry, but you speak as if the person has an inherent RIGHT to receive an OTA signal. Why in the world would the TV station HAVE to spend one cent in order to give this individual reception? I've lived in several areas where I was not able to get a clear signal from some stations. You know what I did? I paid for cable/satellite in order to get reception.

You've made some compelling arguments, but to imply that somehow people have a right to receive an OTA TV signal is not a valid one IMO.

I agree with you on this one, because even in a small city, its hard to get a good analog signal anyways.

And two, the OTA stations had plenty of time to do fundraisers and get money etc. Pssh, my fox station got the money they needed in 1 month, locally run by people in the town, and its KANSAS... If Kansas stations can get ready and San Franciso can't, that sounds like an issue with the City..

As for the elderly people, its been plastered everywhere about the transition. I worked at Best Buy and yes they are confused, but when you explain it hooks up like a VCR, and you control your channels with the box instead of the TV and that's the only difference, they buy 2-3 and you never hear of them coming back and complaining.

The one thing bad about the transition is that it is MUCH harder to receive a DTV signal than analog, you either get it, or you dont. Now with the TV stations still having an analog signal most cannot boost their DTV between 25-50%, so when people take their converter boxes home, they cannot see their channels. They way to fix this, is to have a week where its DTV only, and have it boosted to 100% to really see if its a signal problem or an antenna problem, these tests of 5 minutes do not work.

Also when buying a converter box, you should buy one that does analog and digital pass through, therefore you an pick digital and analog signals, and you won't miss a thing till the conversion. I also tell everyone it will work with the antennas they have, but I HIGHLY recommend buying a new antenna, that has some amplification to pull in the signal.

Also not all elderly people are dumb, and most know what the antennas do, amplification, etc. Its really not that hard of a transition and possibly the easiest thing to do... (if explained correctly, which it really isn't that hard.)

/end rant

[Joe Cain]

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

Sorry, but you speak as if the person has an inherent RIGHT to receive an OTA signal. Why in the world would the TV station HAVE to spend one cent in order to give this individual reception? I've lived in several areas where I was not able to get a clear signal from some stations. You know what I did? I paid for cable/satellite in order to get reception.

You've made some compelling arguments, but to imply that somehow people have a right to receive an OTA TV signal is not a valid one IMO.

Broadcasters are not operating as a public utility, they're in business. Since they're providing content at no cost to the end users, they sell advertising. Advertisers expect to get what they pay for---their products on sale in your living room.

Entitlement has nothing to do with it: broadcasters WANT us to get their signals.

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by Joe Cain

Broadcasters are not operating as a public utility, they're in business. Since they're providing content at no cost to the end users, they sell advertising. Advertisers expect to get what they pay for---their products on sale in your living room.

Entitlement has nothing to do with it: broadcasters WANT us to get their signals.

Yes, I understand that. But broadcasters wanting people to receive their signals and folks arguing that it's not 'fair' that some people will no longer be able to receive an OTA signal are two completely different things. If broadcasters wish to spend $100K in order to fix a digital black hole that affects 1000 households, then they should. If this same black hole only affects 100 households and the broadcaster elects NOT to spend the money, then that is their right to do so. Those households will now have to find another way to get their TV. Is this fair? What does fair have to do with anything? Life, in general, is not always fair. But there are those who want to argue that those people have a right to receive their OTA broadcasts, when they don't. We have a lot of rights in this country. Free OTA television is not one of them.

[Driver_King]

Sir Terrance, it is not anyone's given right to free OTA cable. It is a privilege that many don't have the luxury of. My OTA reception sucks. I'm looking at getting a new, better antenna and HD converter box for my projector. Guess what? I have to pay out of my own money for that. I have 100% respect for everyone. I just don't have 100% respect for what everyone says. There are telephone lines and help lines that have been available for quite a while now. It is very simple to order things over the phone and have things installed by calling someone up. If that's all certain elderly people have to do, well then they must have some money available for the one thing they can do, right? I don't think anybody is being narrow-minded for believing that this is a bad idea. Stations have had years to prepare as have citizens of the US who are affected. You're almost saying everything needs to be perfect so people can get good reception and be all happy because of it. Many people will still not be able to get good reception so I don't see why if a certain few cities (especially large ones) should get royal treatment while other small ones don't.

[Sir Terrence]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

Lots of TV broadcasting markets have areas where reception is bad or non-existent, even for the existing analog signals running at full power. In my viewing market there's numerous areas that don't get good OTA TV signal coverage. People living in those areas are stuck with getting cable or satellite TV.

What if you cannot afford cable, it isn't exactly cheap is it? This is not three deminsional thinking Bobby, this is narrow minded single deminsion thinking.

Why are all those stations broadcasting from just one tower?

Because there are not alot of places in SF to put a 1200ft tower away from homes. We do have earthquakes here in case you have forgotten.

I live in a much smaller TV broadcast DMA (Wichita Falls, TX - Lawton, OK). Like so many small markets with huge areas of rural landscape to cover the local TV stations often have to install signal repeating transponders in other counties to improve the coverage of their signal across the viewing market. Why aren't the stations in San Francisco doing this to reach those hard to cover areas? It sounds like there is more than enough viewers in those blackout areas to justify the cost of some signal repeaters.

Wichita is flat as a pancake, San Francisco is not. Digital does not do very well going over hills. Wichita does not have that problem. Think three deminsionally, and please, out of the bowl. Problems that are easily solved in Wichita, are not here. You are trying to make a complex issues simple, and that just doesn't work well when you are trying to cover a hilly city with digital signals.

The San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose megalopolis is by far one of the most populous, not to mention most affluent, areas in the nation. It's one of the top 10 TV viewing markets in the US. It would seem like those stations would have had more resources to get their DTV situation properly addressed and have it done at a far earlier date.

This is simplistic thinking, and inaccurate information. The Bay area is not even close to a megalopolis. There are more people living on the island of Manhattan, than live in entire Bay area. The city of Los Angeles alone has more people within its city limits than the almost all of Northen California combined. While it is indeed affluent, it is not run by one government.

Here it has nothing to do with resources as much as it has to do with terrain. The stations were at the mercy of the San Francisco city council. The city council has jurisdiction over the land the tower sits on, and the people who live within close proximity also have a great deal of sway. The neighborhood and the city council have been bickering because the height of the tower must be increased to accomodate all of the antennas going up, and the neighbors are afraid of what can happen to the tower during an earthquake, and rightly so. None of these issues has tree bark to do with the stations preparedness or resources. They are at the mercy of entities they cannot control. Secondly repeaters that just repeat a signal is greatly different than those who repeat and amplfiy signals. It costs significantly more for the latter than the former. All of the stations here have worked together to make sure that the entire area can be covered. But you have a problem when one side of the street can clearly get your signal, and the other side cannot. When one neighborhood has no problem, and two blocks over everyone has a problem. The sheer amount of repeater amplifiers that have to be deployed is staggering, and ultra costly. There is no way to plan this in your budget, because you have no idea where the black holes are. With the economy going south, it is impossible for them to just pick up the cost for this, they just do not have the revenue for this kind of massive expediture.

Instead, it sounds to me like some little TV stations out here "in the sticks" have been better prepared for the Feb. 17 deadline than network owned TV stations in the cosmopolitan world city of San Francisco.

Once again, no hills= easy transitions. If your little stations were here, they would be bankrupt, as they would never be able to absorb the cost of the transition. The smaller station here are paying the bigger better financed station big time for their transitional expertise, but everyone is at the mercy of other parties no matter what.

The only excuse I see for Bay Area TV stations not being ready is signal interference between numerous analog and DTV signals crowding the broadcast spectrum. However, those big TV stations have more resources available to get organized collectively so they can all do their various changes in broadcast channel assignments and power levels without jamming the broadcasts of each other.

If this is the only excuse you can see, then you have no clue to the complexity it takes to do the transition here. This is more fishbowl thinking, as you think just because it was easy to do in your area, it must be easy everywhere. Ain't so my friend, ain't so.

That only makes TV stations in San Francisco seem like they didn't have good long term planning. Our local NBC station is running its DTV signal at full power and the FOX affiliate will change its DTV signal to full power during the first week in February. The engineers at those stations found it more prudent to go full power early rather than wait until the last minute to discover any possible bugs in running the signals at full power.

Flat land mentality trying to "get" a hilly terrain mentality. This equals oil and water. The station my friend is in charge of(and all of the major stations here) have been working on their plans for years. However they do not control everything it takes to make the transition smooth or easy. It may have been easier for your stations, but the complexity of the bay (and lets not mention the financial impact) area makes your station transition seem like a walk in the park in comparison. Alot of conclusions with little information leads to wrong conclusion.

PBS relies heavily on public funding and has a very tight budget. It's estimated that PBS stations across the country could lose $22 million over extra utilities costs if they had to continue powering both analog and digital signals until June. Some stations are simply not going to be able to do that.

PBS is just one SMALL part of television broadcasting. Here they share expenses, some resources, and have a very effective fund raising program. KQED is the largest most advanced PBS station in the country, their engineers told my friend they are relieved it about the delay as they would have lost a considerable amount of their viewership because their antenna sits currently at the very bottom of the tower. The effect on PBS station is not monolithic. Some station will feel the heat more than others. I am willing to bet good money they would rather have the delay, than lose the viewership and advertising revenue. That would be far more than $22 million dollars, I assure you.

I think that concern is trumped by the giant-sized electric bills that would come from powering analog and DTV signals simultaneously, especially if both are run at full power. Additionally, the viewing demographic advertisers are trying to reach have been prepared for the DTV change. Viewers in low income brackets and elderly viewers account for most of the estimated 6.5 million people not yet ready for the switch.

This idea of running to signals at full power is just not reality. Most station run their digital channel at three quarter power or less along with analog at full power. There is no requirement to run your digital signal full power until the shut off date. None of the bay area stations are running their digital signals at full power, it would be rediculous to do so before the transitition takes place except during tests, of which the analog would be shut off anyway.

You are making a lot of assumptions with very little information gleaned from all over the country. Broadcast Magazine puts the estimate at closer to 15 million people, and that is why Obama wanted this delay. If a national emergency occured at the shut off period, a significant amount of people would be very uniformed about what is going on. Thi

The viewing demographic does not live in one part of the country that gets signals perfectly, so the claim they have been ready is non factual. Your thinking is in a box, and the world lives outside that box. Any claim that most folks are ready is at best a guestimate. Anyone who sits in the flattest part of this country, and pretends they know all the known complexities of the transition in a hilly, mountainous area just does not have a clue. No offense, but your assumptions are just not educated assumptions.

[Sir Terrence]

Originally Posted by Driver_King

Sir Terrance, it is not anyone's given right to free OTA cable. It is a privilege that many don't have the luxury of. My OTA reception sucks. I'm looking at getting a new, better antenna and HD converter box for my projector. Guess what? I have to pay out of my own money for that. I have 100% respect for everyone. I just don't have 100% respect for what everyone says. There are telephone lines and help lines that have been available for quite a while now. It is very simple to order things over the phone and have things installed by calling someone up. If that's all certain elderly people have to do, well then they must have some money available for the one thing they can do, right? I don't think anybody is being narrow-minded for believing that this is a bad idea. Stations have had years to prepare as have citizens of the US who are affected. You're almost saying everything needs to be perfect so people can get good reception and be all happy because of it. Many people will still not be able to get good reception so I don't see why if a certain few cities (especially large ones) should get royal treatment while other small ones don't.

More simplistic thinking here. You guys REALLY need to be on a phone bank during one of the shut off tests. Only then will you figure out how foolish some of you sound on this. Everything is just so easy, and it is perfectly acceptable to take away something someone has enjoyed for free for more than 50 years. You guys have all the answers don't you?

This thread has freakin disgusted me, and I am through with it.

[Driver_King]

What's $10 with a $40 coupon? Come on man. You're making me sound like an a*hole.

[Driver_King]

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence

More simplistic thinking here. You guys REALLY need to be on a phone bank during one of the shut off tests. Only then will you figure out how foolish some of you sound on this. Everything is just so easy, and it is perfectly acceptable to take away something someone has enjoyed for free for more than 50 years. You guys have all the answers don't you?

This thread has freakin disgusted me, and I am through with it.

Who said that? I didn't! I never said that the people were just going to totally lose their signal with a converter box. I don't understand that comment.

[Driver_King]

Sir Terrance, you missed the point there and you are misunderstanding what we're saying. There is no need for you to get upset.

[Anthony P]

Alot of the stations had their plans in the city council early last year, and they sat on them bickering amoungst each other of petty crap. Any amount of additional time will help everyone work out the kinks, and there sure alot to work out.

I don't disagree that there are people and companies that are not ready. My question is why aren't they. If transmitters or digital converters or DTVs could not be built fast enough and bought to be put in place, then that would be one thing and then it would make sense to push it back (and even longer then 3 months). But if it was because people did nothing to get ready on time because "Feb 2009 is far away" then as soon as it is pushed they will be back to doing nothing and in 3 months they will be back with "we need more time".

Honestly, I don’t care either way. Hell if they postpone it until 2011 they can match when Canada goes digital (and that would make it easier for cross border watching). But like I said, it is not an issue of time. DTV has been coming for a very long time, having both costs everyone money (the government could resell the freed up BW, the stations will save on the analogue transmitters) and if the reason stations (or people ) are not ready is because they did not care and started a half-a$$ed job when it was too late, chances are that giving them more time will just lead to more complacency and not being ready on time.