US Digital TV Switchover Delayed Until June 334
necro81 writes "The Delay DTV Act was passed first by the Senate, now by the House, and will be signed by the President. The hard cutoff for turning off analog TV broadcasts in the US has been pushed out to June 12th. The act had earlier failed to gain a 2/3rds majority in the House, but passed this afternoon with a simple majority. The bill allows stations to cease analog transmissions at any point between Feb 17th (the old cutoff) and June 12th, and many have signaled they will do so."
Deja vu (Score:5, Insightful)
In June, you'll find that there are many people who have not bought digital receivers for their televisions. June is the new February.
Confusion (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason for the date change: a bunch of elderly and poor TV viewers are confused about the switchover.
The result: now everyone is confused.
President O, aren't there more important things for you to be working on?
Re:Confusion (Score:5, Insightful)
A) it's not a whole lot of his time.
B) It important to a lot of people.
TO me the most important part of the bill is that I'll be able to get another card for a converter, since my last one expired.
Re:First Post! (Score:1, Insightful)
FAIL
Re:Many stations switchin anyway... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Confusion (Score:5, Insightful)
Before today's vote, only 6% of the population was confused by the changeover according to Neilson Media. That means you reached 94% of the population.
94% comprehension is a pretty good result.
I can only imagine how many people are going to be confused by a slow, staggered changeover instead of the solid Feb. 17 deadline. Its kind of like ripping off a band aid on a hairy arm. Its a lot more painful if you do it slowly.
Re:Confusion (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Washington comes together... (Score:5, Insightful)
http://goreadgreen.com/ [goreadgreen.com]
Sign up for playboy or other magazines (zinio version) for free for 1 year with just your email address.
Sign up for tons using the dot.ted.add.ress@gmail.com trick, and use them on your single zinio account.
Re:House vote: 264-158 (Score:1, Insightful)
That is nothing the Dem's haven't done for years. Yeah! High School Politics!!!
Re:Many stations switchin anyway... (Score:5, Insightful)
Screw the protesters (Score:5, Insightful)
What are they going to do vote the head of the FCC out? (the FCC head is appointed).
People with time on their hands to protest are generally useless anyhow. The fact they haven't gotten it together to prepare for the switch reinforces that for me.
I hope they are going to compensate the new owners of the bandwidth for the delay.
Didn't the state already auction this bandwidth? (Score:3, Insightful)
Are the new owners being compensated for the delay?
Were they even consulted?
Re:Many stations switchin anyway... (Score:5, Insightful)
Their first and foremost responsibility is to the citizens as a whole.
Screw the stations. If enough people protested this, then they should revoke the whole digital broadcasting.
But this is TEEEVEEE
It's not about people's liberties, human rights, jobs, salary, etc It's the fscking soma machine
Let's worry and spend money where it really matters, like, I dunno, healthcare, education, etc, etc
And if you want TV so bad fork the $50 dollars or something. Can't afford it and doesn't have a coupon!? Well, if you couldn't bother to pay attention in sonething that was advertised for the last COUPLE OF YEARS.
Re:Confusion (Score:5, Insightful)
Especially confusing since stations have been shouting "FEBRUARY 17" from the rooftops for several months now.
The same kind of people who aren't ready for it by now won't be ready for it by June. I have a sneaking suspicion that the delay is much more for the benefit of stations that aren't ready, rather than consumers.
So tune in again... (Score:4, Insightful)
...June 1, when they'll postpone it again!
Never going to happen (Score:3, Insightful)
If the 6.5 million unprepared haven't figured out how to scrape together the $40 to buy a box by now, they're not ever going to do it. Not by now, not by June, not ever.
Re:Confusion (Score:5, Insightful)
TO me the most important part of the bill is that I'll be able to get another card for a converter, since my last one expired.
Yeah, more funding for the coupon program is a big part. You may be able to get another one regardless, since there's supposed to be two per household. Since an expired coupon's money goes back in the pool, you may luck out and be able to get one.
To people worried that this is just part of a never ending cycle of delays because we'll never have everyone ready for the switch... First, this delay is much shorter than previous delays which moved the roll out date by years, so even if it more delays occur I think we can all see the change is really going to happen. Second, you have to admit that there were problems with the implementation of the roll out. The coupon program was underfunded, and confusion resulted in a lot of people who didn't need converters using coupons to get them -- I remember seeing adds on cable TV that did not specify that having cable meant you didn't need the box. Shortages of converters meant a lot of people who did need the boxes couldn't get them before their coupon expired, then couldn't get a new one because the coupon program was out of money.
Fix those problems, let the extra publicity for the issue reach the public, give it a few months, and we should find that far fewer people are still unprepared. Yes not everyone will be and I'm perfectly happy letting the lazy suffer at that point. This is about fixing the problems the government caused by screwing up the program. If they do in fact fix the problem, they'll get most of the people who weren't ready because of those problems, and then I'll say we'll be ready for the switch.
Re:House vote: 264-158 (Score:5, Insightful)
That is nothing the Dem's haven't done for years. Yeah! High School Politics!!!
False.
In most votes on bush policy you had considerable support from the other side of the aisle.
The minute the situation is reversed the republicans pull this "not one vote, no matter what" crap.
This kind of "partisan for the sake of it" garbage is the reason why they continue to lose seats. Here's hoping they lose more and more each election until they learn being the opposition doesn't mean getting in the way for the sake of getting in the way.
The democrats were voted in overwhelmingly. This means the public wants what the democrats offered in their policy platforms. It's the republican's jobs to offer their perspective and grounding to that platform, not blindly rail against it tooth and nail.
This means instead of saying "no universal healthcare", they should be saying "If the public wants it, this is how it should work"
Re:Confusion (Score:4, Insightful)
If the state is already permitting the use of various frequencies for commercial companies, surely those companies should be able to use those frequencies as they see fit. Legislating that they must go from analog to digital at all is spitting in the face of the liberties of those companies. IMO the whole digital/analog thing should be up to the free market, NOT the state.
The problem with this is the phrase "those companies." Different companies bid on different frequencies, for different uses, at different times. Nobody gets to buy a frequency forever. The only alternative to state allocation of specific frequencies for specific uses is a free-for-all in which everyone broadcasts whatever they want at whatever frequency they want and whatever power they can afford, and you end up with interference on every channel. Nobody wins in such a scenario. The current auction model may be broken, but the idea that "the market" can solve this particular problem runs up smack against the laws of physics.
This shit right here (Score:4, Insightful)
Is why America never went metric.
Re:Confusion (Score:5, Insightful)
With a hard cutoff date and no option to switch before that day, far less people would be confused.
As it is, now you are adding people who already have ATSC receivers to the "likely confused", as they will have to keep track of exactly when each station switches and how that station switches (changing frequency, power level, transmitter location, virtual channel, etc.).
In addition, automatically programmed devices (like the HD TiVo) will have to change the virtual to physical mapping at different times for each station. In some cases, the stations will choose to re-brand with the new permanent channel because that old channel could now be opened up. Think of the confusion if some new station ends up on channel 4 while "NBC 4" is broadcasting on channel 48.
The thing that is most stupid is that the original plan wasn't to do the cutover on a Saturday afternoon. What possible reason could there be to make Tuesday the changeover day?
IDIOCY!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
First off, if anyone was really worried about losing marketshare or advertising dollars, it is way, way too late to do anything about that now.
If you recall, they already sold off the spectrum. Sure, they can force new services to delay implementation for a while - but THEY SOLD OFF THE SPECTRUM. Analog television broadcasting is dead, and unless they are going to pay Verizon back their $700 million or so, it is really dead and really soon.
Sure, there is a substantial chance that a lot of people when faced with the decision to go to cable or satellite will chose "none of the above" because their rural location is underserved by DTV signals. Gosh, someone should have thought of that before. Guess what? I'd say they did and decided it was a small enough portion of the overall viewers that it doesn't matter what they do. If you aren't in a major metro area, chances are you are looking at either a much bigger antenna, cable or satellite. Or YouTube. I think you are going to see a lot of people outside of metro areas just turning the TV off and turning it on to play DVDs.
I don't see how any four-month "delay" that is optional is going to make much difference. This might have been a sap to a few stations trying to say they weren't ready, still. But there is no way this is going to help your average viewer - they are either ready or they are forgotten.
And the stupid coupon program isn't coming back either.
Re:Confusion (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem isn't so much the way the state decides who gets to use which frequencies at which time based on an auction model - the problem is with the state then dictating what those frequencies are used for. Once a company has successfully bid for the usage of a slice of the radio-waves for a certain period, it should be completely up to them what they broadcast.
Not as simple as it sounds (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Confusion (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Confusion (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, except (as I've mentioned before) PBS '13' is on 61 analog in my area.
61 comes in like shit.
When the switch happens, they will be moving back to physical channel 13, and the original location and power. Until then, I'm stuck with a nice HDTV that I can't really use for PBS... and that's most of what I watch.
I know how to re-channelscan when all the physical channels move... all at different times. Most people only scanned when they got the box.
Thus, ignorant people on analog will go 'why is Fox not working? NBC works fine...'. Ignorant people on digital will go 'why is Fox not working? NBC works fine'... and us knowledgable people will be shouting on Slashdot.
Re:Deja vu (Score:5, Insightful)
No. Because of the transition, Sweeps was moved from February to March 5.
My dad thinks the delay is great, and he hopes Congress will suddenly decide to cancel Digital television completely. Well, he is approaching 80, so maybe he's not thinking straight. Today he said to me, "Just watch, in two more years they'll stop broadcast completely and make us all upgrade to cable. The politicians love to screw us."
According to the Nielsen Ratings Company, only 5% of households are not ready. So we postponed this switch for a measly 5% of the nation. Pathetic. ----- The other 95% already have access to cable, dish, or a DTV converter box. Here in Pennsylvania, the FCC placed the estimate at 99% ready! What the heck are we waiting for???
Re:Confusion (Score:3, Insightful)
I have a sneaking suspicion that the delay is much more for the benefit of stations that aren't ready, rather than consumers.
the question isn't whether you're paranoid, but whether you're paranoid enough. what if the goal is to delay the freeing up of the spectrum? it could be to give ma bell time to lock in their world domination before wireless takes over the last mile :)
Re:Deja vu (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at it this way: At least they weren't legislating your freedoms away.
Re:Confusion (Score:5, Insightful)
If you look at the voting rolls (and listen to the speeches), you can see that this is a case of the Democrats falling-in-line behind Democrat Obama's wishes. 95% of them voted "yes" while only 5% of Republicans joined them. The Republicans (rightly) decided the delay was not necessary, but instead proposed simply handing-out more coupons to help people buy boxes.
As for the speeches, it was amusing: "We must postpone the analog switchoff because it we don't, emergency responders won't be able to hear their calls." - Um what?!?!? Clearly the Congresswoman who said this has no idea what she's voting for. They're just obediently falling into line as commanded by their Democrat Speaker of the House. "We have to support Obama and he wants to delay the analog switchoff, so vote yes even if you don't understand what it's about."
I was happy when I heard this Democrat from California: "I suspect another motive. I suspect President Obama's decision to delay DTV comes from his new advisor - a man who works for Clearchannel Communications that purchased channels 52 to 69. It's not about helping the people, but about helping a corporation. We should investigate this further."
Re:House vote: 264-158 (Score:4, Insightful)
>>>The democrats were voted in overwhelmingly. This means the public wants what the democrats offered in their policy platforms. It's the republican's jobs to offer their perspective and grounding to that platform, not blindly rail against it tooth and nail.
>>>
Um. No. Your comment displays annoying arrogance, because MY republican representative won with a solid 80% majority. HIS job is to follow the wishes of us, his constituents, not your wishes. I am THRILLED that he voted "no" and if he keeps-up the good job, we'll give him another 80% majority in 2010!
As for partisanship, it was the Democrats who blindly followed Obama's wished to delay the transition. Most of them, based upon their speeches, had no clue what they were supporting! They were just lining-up behind their leader. ----- I think Obama's a smart man, but I think this particular idea was stupid. 95% of the populace is ready; there's no need to delay.
Re:Deja vu (Score:5, Insightful)
It's worse than that, due to the proviso that channels may change on their own at any time after Feb 17th, we now have a situation where nobody really knows when the switch is going to happen.
The same people that were still not aware that it was going to happen this month, are going to be caught even more off guard when channels switch over in a random fashion.
I cannot imagine how this is good news for anybody.
Re:IDIOCY!!! (Score:1, Insightful)
The real idiots are the ones paying $50-100 for cable and still watching as many commericals as broadcast users.
Re:Deja vu (Score:3, Insightful)
And this surprises whom? (Score:2, Insightful)
What I don't understand (Score:3, Insightful)
What I don't understand is why it has to be done all at once? Why not do a rolling switchover? Switch a few transmitters at a time. This also makes it much easier to weed out problems, that can be solved much earlier. Worked very well for Sweden. And before anyone complains that Sweden and the USA can't be compared, remember it's just a question of scale. When Sweden switched two or three transmitters to digital at a time, the USA have to do twenty or thirty. Still better than to switch everyone at once, IMHO.
Re:Deja vu (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes a nice "get out of jail card free" for the politicians
Re:Confusion (Score:5, Insightful)
Holy shit. In other words, Obama can do no wrong... Like the fact that he, like his good buddy Bush, still supports warrant-less domestic spying on Americans and granting immunity to the telcos - but it's OK *NOW*, he is a Democrat! And Bush was the devil!
Here is a giant freakin cluebat. Obama is NOT the black Jesus Christ come to save the world. Don't get me wrong, our other option for Pres. was no better, but decisions like this (DTV delay) are just fucking stupid, and the majority of congress support this stupidity.
Now there are many good reasons for supporting Obama and that's FINE! This, however, isn't one of them.
Re:Deja vu (Score:3, Insightful)
This whole thing is bassbackwards:
- House Democrats voted "yes delay the switch" and yet the Democrats largely represent people in the cities. The city folk are 99.9% ready, since they have the convenience of cable wired into their homes and don't watch over-the-air tv.
- House Republicans voted "no" and yet they represent rural residents (farmers) who don't have cable, and are most likely to need a delay.
I suspect the final vote had more to do with the president in charge. A Democrat Obama requested a delay, and the Democrats fell-over themselves to comply, even though their city-dwelling constituents don't need a delay. (Had it been McCain, we'd probably see an exact-opposite reaction, with Dems voting against and Reps voting for.) It's so sad it's almost funny.
Re:Confusion (Score:3, Insightful)
Well to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, "Whether my neighbor uses Windows, Macintosh, or Linux, matters not to me. It does not harm my body, my property, nor my rights."
On the other hand I'm sure Jefferson would agree that if some people drove on the right side, and others drove on the left, and still others zig-zagged, you'd have a major traffic jam & chaos. The same is true with television, you need to have a set standard, just as you have a set standard for the roads, otherwise there'd be chaos.