U.S. DTV Transition Not Going Very Well

[John Picard]

As for the question of 'luddites' - meh. This isn't gaddam rocket science. Either get a converter, or get BASIC FUCKING CABLE. Even luddites can do that, can't they?

Yes.

However, both of those cost at least a small amount of time and money (and I, along with my family, will never pay for cable, the biggest rip-off going these days).

Luddites were fine with free to air. It meant it was FREE. And didn't involve anything new. And with 8 TVs in this house, that's a lot of change for us.

Why the hell do people keep wanting and expecting everything for free? It ain't gonna happen, folks. Nothing is free anymore.

Most people have cable or satellite now anyway. Who's left that has rabbit ears? Progress in general should not be held back just because some people won't get basic cable. Do we ban all cars just because not everyone can drive?

No, but by your logic we should rip up all the sidewalks that work perfectly well for people to get many places they want to go, just because most people have cars.

You are throwing out my logic and substituting your own.

Walking is not obsolete. There are times and places where it is entirely appropriate. Some people walk for exercise, some do it because they have to (i.e. they don't have a car), some do it just for fun. But the fact remains, walking is normal. It's expected. Walking has not been made obsolete by driving, and it's completely normal to do both, depending on circumstances.

Analog TV via rabbit ears, though? Please. *That* is obsolete. If you must use an antenna (which, I grant, some people still have to do), then fork over FIFTY LOUSY BUCKS and get a converter! As has already been pointed out, people have had YEARS to prepare for this.

Rabbit ears are no different than an antenna Antennae are used by people who are farther out and it helps pull the signal. Those people MAY NOT be able to get a digital signal.

Also, I was planning to own a digital TV by now, but my budget does not allow it. It does not allow the luxury of a converter box, so if I have to go without, then I will go without.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Also, I was planning to own a digital TV by now, but my budget does not allow it. It does not allow the luxury of a converter box, so if I have to go without, then I will go without.

If you can afford Internet access, you can afford the bloody converter.

Rabbit ears are no different than an antenna Antennae are used by people who are farther out and it helps pull the signal. Those people MAY NOT be able to get a digital signal.

In English, please.

Are you suggesting that when the changeover is complete, digital signals may not reach out to certain areas, even if the people there already have the appropriate equipment to receive said signals? Where's the evidence of that?

 

[ATimson]

You are throwing out my logic and substituting your own.

No, I'm extending your analogy so that it's actually applicable.

 

[ATimson]

If you can afford Internet access, you can afford the bloody converter.

You mean that Internet access like they often have for free at the public library, or at work, or by stealing the neighbors' wi-fi?

 

[John Picard]

Also, I was planning to own a digital TV by now, but my budget does not allow it. It does not allow the luxury of a converter box, so if I have to go without, then I will go without.

If you can afford Internet access, you can afford the bloody converter.

Really? That's interesting, because I have three choices for Internet

1. Dial up - Slow, and redundant for having two phones (cell and landline)
2. Satellite - Expensive and has a bad reputation for service
3. 3G Wireless - Costs a little more than dial-up and the landline together

Rabbit ears are no different than an antenna Antennae are used by people who are farther out and it helps pull the signal. Those people MAY NOT be able to get a digital signal.

In English, please.

Are you suggesting that when the changeover is complete, digital signals may not reach out to certain areas, even if the people there already have the appropriate equipment to receive said signals? Where's the evidence of that?

Unlike you, I've been keeping tabs on this digital switchover and how it will affect people who live remote/rural. There is concern that people who are just able to pull an analog signal won't be able to pull the digital signal.

WHAT PART OF DIGITAL IS EITHER THERE OR NOT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND.

 

[shivkala]

It's also not going to be good when they can't get half of the stations that they could with analog TV. We recently got a digital TV where I work, and before the only station we couldn't get was CBS (though sometimes messing around with the antenna we could). Now we can't get NBC, Fox and sometimes we can't get ABC (depending on if the television gods are smiling on us or not).

Harry Shearer's weekly radio show, "Le Show," has been covering this for a while in segments called, "The Digital Wonderland." Apparently, a lot of people, upon getting converter boxes are finding they can't access channels they had before with rabbit ears.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

If you can afford Internet access, you can afford the bloody converter.

You mean that Internet access like they often have for free at the public library, or at work, or by stealing the neighbors' wi-fi?

Ditto.

Please. It's a one-time $50 "additional expenditure" for something they're still going to get for free.

Something they "get for free" after they buy a multi-hundred dollar piece(s) of equipment.

Digital broadcasting is the future and a change that needs to come sooner or later just for the quality of the media alone.

People've had YEARS to get read for this, They could've saved $2 a month for the last two years and been able to buy a convertor box. It's not a lot of money, hardly something people should fret over and demand from the government.

Why the hell do people keep wanting and expecting everything for free? It ain't gonna happen, folks. Nothing is free anymore.

Well perhaps that's something that's worth taking a stand against. That's why I suggest that this has less to do with technological progress than with consumerism, requiring everyone to buy either a new TV or a converter box. Either way, an additional expenditure is an additional expenditure. Taking a formerly free service and requiring an additional $50 investment into it, particularly when it's requiring everyone to make that investment all at once (at least within the same 1 year timespan or thereabouts) seems incredibly suspicious to me.

Yes, we have known about the changeover for years. But who amongst the consumer base has actually demanded it? Very likely, anyone "backward" enough to still be using free TV rather than cable or satellite is not going to care about the increased quality of digital TV. They use it because it's free, not because it's good. Why not leave the free analog signals and save the digital stuff for those willing to pay for cable or satellite anyway? Why a sudden changeover that requires millions of viewers to simultaneously invest in new equipment that has worked perfectly fine for the last 50 years?

 

[Trekker4747]

The "service" is still free and already requires a hundred of dollars investment to even get to it. An additional $50 isn't asking "much."

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Why the hell do people keep wanting and expecting everything for free? It ain't gonna happen, folks. Nothing is free anymore.

Well perhaps that's something that's worth taking a stand against.

Perhaps. You might not believe this, but I agree, some things really are worth fighting. I just don't think this is one of them. More on that later.

That's why I suggest that this has less to do with technological progress than with consumerism, requiring everyone to buy either a new TV or a converter box. Either way, an additional expenditure is an additional expenditure. Taking a formerly free service and requiring an additional $50 investment into it, particularly when it's requiring everyone to make that investment all at once (at least within the same 1 year timespan or thereabouts) seems incredibly suspicious to me.

What do you mean, 'formerly free'? The $50 is only a ONE TIME FEE. That's it. You pay it once, and that's it. After that, it's over. TV will still be free. $50 may seem like a lot, but in the grand scheme of things, it's a drop in the bucket.

Why a sudden changeover that requires millions of viewers to simultaneously invest in new equipment that has worked perfectly fine for the last 50 years?

This is not a sudden anything. It's been well publicized for a long time. It's not a rush - not even close. We've known about it for MANY years - much longer than a single year. It's been at least four years - the regulation that set the date for the changeover has been in place since 2005. linky

And for all of that time, it has also been well known that we won't have to all rush out and buy new thousand-dollar TVs. We all know - we've always known - that the converter box is only a single purchase. It's not a monthly fee. Pay it once, and forget all about it.

If the government and the broadcast companies were as evil as you seem to be suggesting, they would have never offered the coupons in the first place. But they did. I think they're trying as best they can. But with the economy being what it is, the money isn't always going to be there to offer said coupons. It's not the government's fault that so many people are waiting till the last minute to get their coupons. The word has been out for long enough.

 

[ATimson]

And for all of that time, it has also been well known that we won't have to all rush out and buy new thousand-dollar TVs. We all know - we've always known - that the converter box is only a single purchase. It's not a monthly fee. Pay it once, and forget all about it.

Right, once the boxes and coupons were available. Which was hardly for that entire multiyear period--really only within the last year or so have they been available.

If the government and the broadcast companies were as evil as you seem to be suggesting, they would have never offered the coupons in the first place.

But that offer wasn't necessarily one made in good faith. Those who did apply for the coupons ahead of time often found that the coupons either arrived expired or that the boxes weren't available in their area yet. (Or in my case, both.)

 

[Ptrope]

Guys this should be a good thing. More spectrum = more cell phone companies. More companies = more competition. More competition = lower prices.

Not really, in any of those points. More spectrum means existing companies buying it up - it doesn't necessarily follow that more companies will come into existence as a result. Nor does that mean lower prices, as there are already several lawsuits in existence over collusion and price-fixing amongst the cell providers - they're already overcharging for the bandwidth they provide and their costs incurred (did you know that transporting text messages is virtually free for cell companies, as it moves over the carrier that is sent out anyway that maintains the connectivity with your phone? Yet they are getting a pretty penny for all those messages that cost them nothing to send).

As for digital being "progressive," I've seen so much artifacting in digitally-transmitted TV that I'm beginning to prefer the crappy video on YouTube! They clearly don't have mature technology in place for this; Feb. 17th is going to be the start of the most massive beta test in history. And as for the freeing of bandwidth for public services? Who pays for that? You do. The public services can't use their existing equipment with the new spectra, so in addition to buying new digital converters, your tax money is going to be paying for new public and emergency services equipment.

This is all going to be at the corner of Cluster & F*** very soon; I'd suggest not standing there. The only people for whom this is actually a "good thing" in the short (2-5 years) term are the cellphone companies and the television manufacturers. So, yeah, it's all about money, not progress.

 

[Non Sync]

The coupons needed to be better thought out and organized. Having them with a 90 day expeation date really was limiting. The biggest mistake was initially limiting two per household based on street address. This really clobbered apartment complexes and trailer parks- the folks that really needed the assistance.

The digital stations are not running at the similar power levels as their analog channel. Where you might have been able to get by with rabbit ears for analog, you might need an external antenna.

Of course the cable companies are using this as a chance to relocate some signals to their digital tiers (not related the OTA digital) and require extra fees for the cable boxes.

Once the analog is shut off, it will be a major problem to turn it back on. A number of stations will be changing their digital channel to a different frequency. When you see 11-1 on your digital tuner in Los Angeles for Fox, you are actually looking at channel 65. On Feb 18, they will move their digital channel to 11. No one has been talking about that. Everyone should rescan their receivers after the cutoff date!

I wish I could take the month of Feb off...

 

[Chess Piece Face]

I already got ol mom a converter box and attached it to a bowtie antenna that I built in 20 minutes out of coat hangers and a piece of wood. Look up "diy antenna" on youtube...it really works. I have one in my attic and get every hd channel.

Why delay the change over? It has to happen sometime, and really the gov shouldn't have paid for anybody's converter box if you ask me.

 

[ATimson]

It has to happen sometime, and really the gov shouldn't have paid for anybody's converter box if you ask me.

The government isn't paying for it; the funds came from (some of) the money raised by auctioning off the spectrum that will be vacated.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Ptrope it isn't that the technology isn't mature enough Digital Terrestrial broadcasts have been going for over 10 years in here in the UK, the problem is the amount of compression they're using to fit HD and/or extra channels on the multiplex. Where they should be using 4-6mbps for SD they will compress much further to fit HD or extra SD channels on there, so you end up with artifacts. Which is why I'm convinced once we're all going HD and cable/satellite companies start adding more HD we'll end up with rubbishy HD picture quality too.

Switchover is going in stages here in the UK because we have 98% of the country covered, and some overlaps with European countries, so our switchover is going in stages so as not to disrupt other areas/countries broadcasts. The first 2 areas have been switched already, my area is switching 2011, but it doesn't really matter, because upwards of 85% of the country have already gone digital with either Freeview (the brand name for free to air Digital Terrestrial TV), satellite or cable. I think basically because Freeview was about before HD, it because pretty much like "basic cable" with over 30 SD channels and people had an incentive to buy a cheap digital box (they're now as cheap as £15/$22 in places).

 

[John Picard]

But that offer wasn't necessarily one made in good faith. Those who did apply for the coupons ahead of time often found that the coupons either arrived expired or that the boxes weren't available in their area yet. (Or in my case, both.)

There are a lot of people who received coupons who never should have. My brother and my father both got coupons the minute they were available, yet one has satellite TV and the other has cable TV. I told my brother they don't need the coupons (he's very intelligent, dad is old) and he stated, "Are you sure? Dad wanted me to get him two anyway, just to be safe."

I'm betting there are a lot of people like them out there -- didn't need a box but got coupons and boxes anyway.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Count me as one of those who's surprised that this is even news. While I have no desire to see anyone cut off from service...I mean, come on. There's been plenty of time to get a converter. In my local Best Buy there's still hundreds of them. I'm sure that with a minimal amount of effort, they can still be had.

Exactly. Even without the coupon, you can still buy the converter box. Just in the last month, I've seen them in grocery stores, I've seen them in drug stores, I've seen them at Wal-Mart and Target. The government subsidy might not be there, but the boxes are there, and they can be bought, and I don't see why this is even an issue.

 

[Chess Piece Face]

It has to happen sometime, and really the gov shouldn't have paid for anybody's converter box if you ask me.

The government isn't paying for it; the funds came from (some of) the money raised by auctioning off the spectrum that will be vacated.

Oh, cool.

 

[David cgc]

I don't understand why, instead of switching the analog channels off in February, they don't just change all analog channels to run those converter-box infomercials for a month.

Then, instead of being confused, all the stragglers will at least get instructions on what to do. Wouldn't that be better than a delay?

Well, that means the government is going to have to buy up all that ad time, since each channel owns their own analogue transmitters. I suppose they could just seize the time, similar to the emergency broadcast systems, but that strikes me as being a bit of a frivolous use of government power.

Jacksonville, FL ran a test about a month ago which exposed problems with both the way the satellite companies were getting the digital signal and also flooded the stations with calls from people who'd either lost the signal or couldn't get their converter boxes to work.

I'm not familiar with this case, but I talked with my sister about something similar. She has cable, but when her local station ran the test where they switch the analogue transmitter to an infographic about the transition and keep the digital transmitter running normally, she got the infographic. I confirmed for her that she didn't need a converter, and it was just that her cable company hadn't switched to sending her the digital feed. My cable company had the same problem, though my parent's satellite service seemed to switch to the digital versions of the local stations as soon as they were available.

The easiest way for me to tell which feed the cable company was using was to wait until thursday nights to see if "The Office" is letterboxed or not.

 

[Scout101]

holy jesus, what a ton of complaining and hand-wringing over nothing. Government conspiracies, forced investment in formerly free tech, etc. Come on!

It's a $40 investment (some are $50, but Wal-Mart, for example, sells theirs for $40). We're not talking hundreds or thousands of dollars, $40. Granted, that's per TV, but still. If your budget doesn't support that, and you're that close to the line, you've got much larger problems than TV. Can't save $40 in 2 years? You're completely screwed, TV shouldn't even be a consideration. Even worse, if you weren't a slacker or completely unaware of the world, the government was giving them away for free.

My parents live in Maine, so are going to have to deal with this situation. When the coupons became available, I signed up and got them two. No problem. Tried them at their cottage (the house has a Satellite dish), and it didn't work. Being in a rural area, that was somewhat expected, especially considering their antenna on the roof was old and crappy, and the wire running from it to the tv even worse. Lots of bitching about the costs, but let's look:

-Converter box: Free (or worst case, $40)
-New antenna for the roof (got a big-assed uhf/vhf 50 something piece directional array): $100
-Powered pre-amp (according to the website, they are in the blue/violet fringe, based upon distance and terrain): $70
-New cable to run from antenna to TV wall outlet: $15 for 100ft on momoprice, RG-6 Quad shield cable

So, they are in a worst-case situation, and had to replace EVERYTHING but the tv. Total cost? $185. That's it, and they'll end up with more channels than they were pulling in before. $225 for those that are clueless and didn't apply for a coupon in time.

I mean, sucks that it's not free, but we're not talking a lot of money. It costs more to get a computer, pay for internet access, and log on to complain about it! Using the $225 number, that's $9 a month over the 2 years that this has been clearly advertised. Not a backbreaker. And if it IS, you're probably better off selling your tv so you can eat, anyway. If your antenna is decent, and your cable isn't old and corroding, the cost goes even lower. converter only, or converter and maybe a pre-amp, you're up and running for $100, getting a stronger signal than before...

Delaying the changeover would be a huge cost to the TV companies, as they'd have to keep pusing both signals, when they budgeted for shutting off the analog on the 17th. Companies that bought the old frequencies would also have to delay their usage of it, which may cost them additional money. Plus the massive expense of having to advertise all over again about a NEW changeover date, which people will just blow off until the last minute again anyway...

Some people are going to ignore this and be in the dark on changeover day no matter WHEN it is, so to spend millions extra to try and help them, when in the end, it won't help them at all, is foolish. Having their TV go dark will be their first clue...