Senate passes bill to delay digital TV switch

[tqmilymi]

According to the GAO, "should the overall DTV transition not proceed smoothly, it could undermine the public’s confidence in government."

See http://www.gao.gov/transition_2009/u...digital-tv.php

[Whatstreet]

I am wondering, what will the prepared people lose by the procrastination. Is it revenue from the rights to the spectrum? Services gained from the new uses of the spectrum? What are the new services?

I thought the original mandate was so that the spectrum could be applied to new applications that would benefit the masses. If so, these delays cannot persist.

[Opips2]

The poor people will switch to radio FM/AM. there listen a radio. They enjoy listen a music or news radio.

[DigitalfreakNYC]

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence

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.

No offense but I hope I'm dead before I don't know how to work my TV anymore.

[Marquoz]

Originally Posted by DigitalfreakNYC

No offense but I hope I'm dead before I don't know how to work my TV anymore.

It's not that they didn't know how to work the TV anymore, it's that they grew up without TVs when they were young. Somebody 80 years old was alive before TVs were popular and in every household. Imagine something that comes out 10 years from now, is super high tech compared to what you have, but completely out of your reach for another 20 years because of the cost. Then when you are 80 there is a sweeping change in it 50 years later after you are very much set in your ways of how it works. This is the problem with elderly folks.

[DigitalfreakNYC]

Originally Posted by Marquoz

It's not that they didn't know how to work the TV anymore, it's that they grew up without TVs when they were young. Somebody 80 years old was alive before TVs were popular and in every household. Imagine something that comes out 10 years from now, is super high tech compared to what you have, but completely out of your reach for another 20 years because of the cost. Then when you are 80 there is a sweeping change in it 50 years later after you are very much set in your ways of how it works. This is the problem with elderly folks.

My grandmother just turned 79. She's not feeble or unable to fend for herself. She lives alone. This isn't rocket science and if they can't understand all of this, they shouldn't be living alone.

She has cable and needs to have a digital cable box. It's that simple.

[benzgrl]

Originally Posted by DigitalfreakNYC

My grandmother just turned 79. She's not feeble or unable to fend for herself. She lives alone. This isn't rocket science and if they can't understand all of this, they shouldn't be living alone.

She has cable and needs to have a digital cable box. It's that simple.

Look, we all can help our elderly ones, even if they live alone, we all can pitch in to help our neighbors.

Anyways, all this talk, made me think of this funny video I saw!
http://www.hulu.com/watch/36608/talk...psa#s-p1-st-i1

[The Big Blue]

Originally Posted by tqmilymi

According to the GAO, "should the overall DTV transition not proceed smoothly, it could undermine the public’s confidence in government."

See http://www.gao.gov/transition_2009/u...digital-tv.php

I find it really hard to believe that there is a *large* number of innocents here deserving of sympathy.

[Bobby Henderson]

This whole deal about "elderly people can't learn technology" is a bunch of garbage. I know people getting well on into their 70s who have no problem using DVRs, mobile phones and even operating personal computers. A freaking DTV converter box is not that big of a deal.

Originally Posted by caliblue15

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.

That point needs a little clarification. There is a strong chance a lot of viewers will see a very significant improvement over the previous analog broadcast. Most TV stations have installed new transmission equipment for DTV broadcasts. Compare that with the existing analog gear -some of which may be decades old hardware.

I've always had terrible OTA broadcast reception of our local NBC affiliate. The picture was very snowy. The audio would get cut out with all kinds of interference. It was just plain un-watchable. The same station's full power DTV signal comes in great over the same outdoor antenna I've had for over a decade.

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?

Exactly. TV stations aren't obligated to provide 100% signal coverage to every person living in a viewing market. If someone chooses to live in an area where it's all but impossible to cover with over the air TV signals he'll have to subscribe to cable or satellite or just do without TV. That's how it goes here in Oklahoma.

If people here want to live out in the pretty mountains they simply accept the fact they won't be getting squat for TV signals (and have a hard time getting mobile phone signals as well). They don't scream to the stations as if they're somehow entitled to get full signal coverage. The local TV stations would go broke if they had to make sure every nook and cranny of a market was covered with free OTA TV broadcast signals.

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence

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.

People who can't afford cable TV probably shouldn't even be living in the Bay Area at all. That is an extremely expensive place to live.

Here in my neck of the woods, people live with the drawbacks of moving into an area with poor TV reception. If free TV signals are important to them they move to an area where they can receive them.

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence

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'm sure the Bay Area has literally hundreds of mobile phone towers all over the place. So that's not really much of an excuse. Also, we have things called severe thunderstorms and tornadoes in this part of the country -something that damages broadcast towers more often than earthquakes. Yet the small market TV stations here somehow find a way to make due unlike those giant network owned TV stations in the Bay Area.

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence

Wichita is flat as a pancake, San Francisco is not.

I'm not in Wichita Kansas It's the Wichita Falls-Lawton market. If you think it's flat as a pancake you've probably never been to this part of the nation. And that shoots a big hole through the paragraphs of stuff you wrote to discredit my statements. Get your geography right.

There are mountains here. There's lots of rolling hills, river cut valleys and other geographic features that make getting an OTA TV signal challenging. On top of that, the big chunk of North Texas and SW Oklahoma this market covers is a much bigger spread of area than what the Bay Area covers. The TV stations here have far less money to get the job done.

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence

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.

Baloney. Over 1.5 million people live in Manhattan. The latest population estimates put the Bay Area metro population at 6.9 million people. Around 700,000 people live in San Francisco alone. Nearly 1 million live in San Jose. And the Bay Area is indeed ranked in the Top 10 largest TV viewing markets in the United States. Additionally, the Bay Area often has the highest living costs of any metro area in the contiguous 48 states.

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence

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.

The deep pockets in the Bay Area can certainly afford it. The signal repeating transponders being put up in this market are indeed the more expensive kind that amplify the signal. There's even smaller TV markets in my home state of New Mexico that rely even more heavily on those repeaters. Far fewer people live in New Mexico and there's a much higher percentage of low income residents there. Not everyone in the Land of Enchantment lives like millionaires do in Santa Fe.

The Bay Area has so many different communities that it shouldn't just be up to the fat heads in the San Francisco City Council to decide what's best for TV stations. Again, those network owned TV stations have a lot of resources that should have been allowing them to think outside of the box -including playing other cities against San Francisco. It takes employees to maintain things like transmission towers. Let another town have those jobs and let San Francisco do without them.

They could also consider trying to install some towers on mountain ridges, like what Colorado Springs has done. Maybe the "hippies" won't allow that.

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence

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.

Other large markets like Denver, Dallas and Salt Lake City are much farther ahead of the curve than San Francisco. A big part of that is people willing to pick up a phone, talk to people at other TV stations and actually work out a plan. The way you characterize the situation it sounds like the TV stations in San Francisco haven't done any of that at all. As far behind as they are a four month delay isn't going to make any difference.

[caliblue15]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

That point needs a little clarification. There is a strong chance a lot of viewers will see a very significant improvement over the previous analog broadcast. Most TV stations have installed new transmission equipment for DTV broadcasts. Compare that with the existing analog gear -some of which may be decades old hardware.

I've always had terrible OTA broadcast reception of our local NBC affiliate. The picture was very snowy. The audio would get cut out with all kinds of interference. It was just plain un-watchable. The same station's full power DTV signal comes in great over the same outdoor antenna I've had for over a decade.

There is your answer right there, you have an amplified outdoor antenna, I will say most of America uses an Indoor antenna, much harder to receive channels that way.

[djluis2k6]

Oh what for??? People have been being told for over a year to upgrade their old TVs!!

[Bobby Henderson]

Originally Posted by caliblue15

There is your answer right there, you have an amplified outdoor antenna, I will say most of America uses an Indoor antenna, much harder to receive channels that way.

Incorrect.

The outdoor antenna I'm using is not amplified at all. Further, the mast on it is missing a bunch of spokes from a nearby tree's branches swatting the crud out of it from a past severe thunderstorm. Nonetheless, I'm getting great quality OTA DTV reception from an NBC affiliate broadcasting at 1000 kW from a distance of roughly 50 miles.

Regarding claims of what kind of antenna most of America uses -most of America is actually paying for cable/satellite TV. People who really need decent OTA broadcast reception are going to rely on an outdoor model of antenna.

I think a lot of people are jumping to conclusions about DTV reception quality based on what they're getting with low power DTV broadcasts. Our local ABC affiliate is running its DTV signal at low power and it can be difficult to get decent reception even living with a few miles of the tower. It's impossible to get reception more than 20-30 miles in the distance. The image gets blocky and scrambled at times. There's a big difference when the DTV signal is being broadcast at full power.

[tron3]

Originally Posted by mystiksuicide

Can't they get the news over the radio? I mean if they are that antiquated they should have a radio

My point was that most people at home have the TV on. Short of calling up millions of people, it is the fastest means to get the news to the masses immediately.

Did you listen to the radio when 9/11 hit? I had to as I working the help desk at the NJ Air National Guard at the time and could not leave it. Not the same as seeing it.

FYI: I received one of the first, if not THE first phone call to the base when the first plane struck. My supervisor was off that day. He was watching TV and got the news immediately before the second plane even hit. He called me right away to tell to the chief to tell the commander. Ugh, I hate those memories.

[caliblue15]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

Incorrect.

The outdoor antenna I'm using is not amplified at all. Further, the mast on it is missing a bunch of spokes from a nearby tree's branches swatting the crud out of it from a past severe thunderstorm. Nonetheless, I'm getting great quality OTA DTV reception from an NBC affiliate broadcasting at 1000 kW from a distance of roughly 50 miles.

The point is you still have an outdoor antenna, its much easier to get a signal from an outside antenna than indoor... Also 1000kw at 50 miles is hella close.

[Firestreak]

I think that saying elderly people can't and won't learn how to install a converter box is kind of pointless.

Yes, it's true and at the same time doesn't really have to do with anything. What we're talking about here is a delay, not a cancellation. If you believe that the needs of these elderly who can't plug this converter being offered to them for free into their TV is greater than the needs of all the positives that would go forth from the switchover, including not only the benefits but preventing the losses from canceling it - then you are not arguing for a delay, you are arguing for canceling it, because a delay changes nothing.

As for businesses not prepared and full black out areas, there is a short term and long term view to look at. By delaying the change, you create an expectation that issues like that will be resolves always with delays to accommodate until everyone is ready. If the government was more stringent on preventing delays, the companies would be ready because they would not have the expectation that the country will stop and wait for them.

As for advertising revenue, do you seriously think advertisers care about reaching people who can't get a digital signal? Advertisers target is disposable income - that's the very nature of why they have to advertise for it. If you are so poor you cannot afford to switch to digital, you are of zero value to most businesses, in fact, you're a liability. If you're ever had a job at a grocery store, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about. They will be cheap, necessity products only, that either have no profit margin, or the store takes a loss on selling(more products in a grocery store than you may realize are sold at a loss to get people in the store), and then they complain, taking up employees time,(which = money the store has to pay these employees) and often return the product, which is ALWAYS going to be tossed even if appearing unopened.

From a business standpoint, these are not people you give a damn about reaching with your ads. The elderly also steal, OFTEN, and if caught act angry and belligerent.

I'm not trying to appear unsympathetic, as I'm not talking about the moral implications of how we should treat our elders, I'm talking about business here in black and white.

But if you want to talk about the morality of it, ask yourself what a delay will do. Are you waiting for these people to die, with hopes that the next wave of elderly will already have upgraded to digital before becoming old? I don't understand where the moral gains are by a delay, other than a meaningless gesture.

Squawk all you want about poor, single old ladies with nothing in the world except their old analog TVs, if you are trying to make the argument to me that for the last few years it was beyond their ability to convert to digital, which I'm not going to dispute for the sake of this argument, then in the next few months they are not going to be able to convert for all the same reasons. So, to return to my original point, are you saying that it's immoral to switch to digital at all because some people are so obscenely incapable of plugging a box into their TV? Cause that's the only leg this argument has to stand on - the delay is pointless by its own logic.

And yes, at the end of the day, it's not a constitutional right to have free TV signals. No one is being wronged by switching the signal, while many are being wronged by delaying it. I have a little FM transmitted I plug into my receiver so I can listen to my own media on my shower radio. The fact that the signal exists doesn't mean everyone in the country has a right to be able to receive it. The fact that some people who simultaneously are wholly dependent on some signal for their only form of entertainment, while are not competent enough to understand the very basics behind the technology, or understand basic instructions on how to work it, is their own damn fault. To say because someone is elderly and therefore doesn't like change is not wholly fair.

People have personal responsibility for maintaining some social ties with others around them if that's important to them, and have had their whole life to prepare SOMETHING in terms of monetary reserves for their retirement. If they have done neither, what responsibility we as a society have to keep them happy is a discussion that has nothing to do with digital/analog, but to say something is old, and therefore have no expectation to have any money, friends, technical no-how, is supremely a bad lesson to teach the young with regards to how they should plan for their future.

As opposed to the idea that the lesson we should should be to stop all progress to not leave anyone behind, perhaps we should learn to prepare for a future so while our quality of life might drop, we have some control over our own destiny.

[Bobby Henderson]

I'm glad the computer industry hasn't been subject to this kind of governmental foot-dragging. If companies like Intel, Apple, Microsoft & IBM had to wait until the general public was ready to make a switch in technology we would all still be using early 1980s quality computers.

The transition to HDTV is a process that has already spanned 30 years. Enough with the waiting already. A new June 12 deadline isn't going to change any existing, difficult situations for certain viewers or broadcasters.

The act of finally cutting off the analog signals will at least remove one major variable. It will force those who waited too long to finally act on either acquiring converter boxes or even buying new digital televisions. With the broadcast spectrum freed of analog TV signals it would greatly simply the situation faced by TV stations in crowded broadcast markets.

[Sir Terrence]

We need to just close this thread. The great all knowing Bobby Henderson has spoken. He knows everything about everything, and all of us are just mere mortals next to his all knowing greatness.

Bobby, you amaze me

[SatinKzo]

the house defeated the bill today (thank goodness). I'm sure someone will bring it up again to try and postpone still.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by SatinKzo

the house defeated the bill today (thank goodness). I'm sure someone will bring it up again to try and postpone still.

So it's still the same deadline?

[Marine Mike]

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence

We need to just close this thread. The great all knowing Bobby Henderson has spoken. He knows everything about everything, and all of us are just mere mortals next to his all knowing greatness.

Bobby, you amaze me

You should be showing Mr. Henderson a little bit more respect as he is kind of a big deal as people know him and his posts smells of rich mahogany.