# House Votes against DTV Delay; Deadline Extended



## jowens (Jan 28, 2009)

The house republicans voted against delaying the Digital TV Switch.
Sucks for wx microphones in March, no?

See story below.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/28/AR2009012801883.html?hpid=topnews

~Joe


----------



## mbenonis (Feb 1, 2009)

The DTV transition date has been set in stone for years, and we've known about it for years. The reality is that those who have not purchased new wireless mics or sent theirs in to be returned or replaced have been negligent - simple as that. I hate to be so harsh but there really is no need for delay at this point.


----------



## Footer (Feb 1, 2009)

Its not the wireless mic issue...no one cares. Its the new adminstration believeing that people don't know they need a converter box. Also, the cable companys commercials are not helping. We'll see what happens in the next few weeks. Glad I don't work for the FCC.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## renegadeblack (Feb 1, 2009)

I don't recall where it was but in some city, I believe in South Carolina, they did it early to see how things would go and it was a miserable failure.


----------



## erikwithak (Feb 3, 2009)

change is never easy

things are going to go wrong, and there plenty of people to fix the problems, i'm sure.

so ya, for a few weeks, some people might be without tv, or there might be some issues with wireless mics, but things will get sorted out.


----------



## techieman33 (Feb 3, 2009)

this needs to happen it's already been delayed to long. If people haven't figured it out by now than that's their own fault. There has been plenty of advertising done to alert people about this coming change. And if they don't know about it yet them it's probably not going to affect them much as it would seem they don't ever watch tv.


----------



## ruinexplorer (Feb 3, 2009)

The biggest problem are with the elderly and the technically challenged. How long were there jokes about not being able to program a VCR? I personally never had a problem, but I knew plenty of people who never could figure it out (really didn't care to). As for the need, I don't think that there ever is the need, just the desire. If there was a need, we wouldn't have HDMI as the standard for HDTV. It won't work unless all of your devices are sending out the digital rights information. Where's the need in that for the consumer? We are being sold snake water with the whole digital TV conversion in my opinion. Sure, it has the ability to look good, but for the government to mandate something as trivial as this is rediculous. It was obviously profit motivated in the first place (lobbyists have been seeding politicians for ever), and it continued to be so (whitespace being sold off). I appreciate better quality in my shows, but I think it should be my right to decide whether or not I want to go that direction, not to have it mandated to me. I have been letting my congressmen know my opinions as well.


----------



## Footer (Feb 3, 2009)

ruinexplorer said:


> The biggest problem are with the elderly and the technically challenged. How long were there jokes about not being able to program a VCR? I personally never had a problem, but I knew plenty of people who never could figure it out (really didn't care to). As for the need, I don't think that there ever is the need, just the desire. If there was a need, we wouldn't have HDMI as the standard for HDTV. It won't work unless all of your devices are sending out the digital rights information. Where's the need in that for the consumer? We are being sold snake water with the whole digital TV conversion in my opinion. Sure, it has the ability to look good, but for the government to mandate something as trivial as this is rediculous. It was obviously profit motivated in the first place (lobbyists have been seeding politicians for ever), and it continued to be so (whitespace being sold off). I appreciate better quality in my shows, but I think it should be my right to decide whether or not I want to go that direction, not to have it mandated to me. I have been letting my congressmen know my opinions as well.



It doesn't have anything to do with the money. It has to do with the number of wirless devices that people are wanting to now use and the amount of spectrum availble. When the TV signal spectrum was laid out most of the wireless devices that we now use did not exist nor did they forsee them existing. Moving to DTV we are able to have the same amount of information sent out in a smaller spectrum at a higher quality. Not only that, but television stations can broadcast up to four stations at a time in their alocated bandwidth if they so choose. PBS in my area is using this to its fullest. 

Yes, some people can not program a VCR. This has nothing to do with VCR's. This is a box that hooks up to your TV and works the same way as your TV. If you can plug in a TV, you can use this box. This change is lumped into the same pile as the death of telephone operators, rotary dialing, and party lines. Change happens.


----------



## cdub260 (Feb 3, 2009)

erikwithak said:


> so ya, for a few weeks, some people might be without tv, or there might be some issues with wireless mics, but things will get sorted out.



Hey, I've been without t.v. for close to six years. I get no reception in my neighborhood, being in a canyon, and I'm too cheap to pay for cable or satellite service. Strangely enough, I don't miss the boob tube. Besides, I have a rather large collection of anime dvd's to keep myself entertained with.


----------



## ruinexplorer (Feb 4, 2009)

Footer said:


> It doesn't have anything to do with the money. It has to do with the number of wirless devices that people are wanting to now use and the amount of spectrum availble. When the TV signal spectrum was laid out most of the wireless devices that we now use did not exist nor did they forsee them existing.



But, when legislation was laid out to force the move to DTV, those wireless devices did exist or were in development situations. They were also in existence when the FCC decided to sell off the white space to big corporations. One of Google's chairmen was on the FCC's committee that decided to sell the white space and Google is one of the biggest purchasers of that space.

I was paying attention to when the original legislation was being made and one of the strongest arguements was that legislation was because they felt consumers would not make the change on their own. They felt that by legislating this matter, more consumers would have to purchase the new technology and that would bring the prices down so that every one could afford it. I've seen the "affordable" TVs and they are pieces of junk IMHO. I don't know how many people I have talked to that said their new TVs haven't lasted 2 years.



Footer said:


> Moving to DTV we are able to have the same amount of information sent out in a smaller spectrum at a higher quality. Not only that, but television stations can broadcast up to four stations at a time in their alocated bandwidth if they so choose. PBS in my area is using this to its fullest.



I agree that there are many advantages to DTV and many consumers will benefit from it. What I am saying is that there was no reason for the government to dictate DTV. The digital airwaves have hit radio stations as well, but the government didn't mandate it. Sure, I'm missing programs because I haven't switched out my radio, but that is my decision as a consumer. 


Footer said:


> Yes, some people can not program a VCR. This has nothing to do with VCR's. This is a box that hooks up to your TV and works the same way as your TV. If you can plug in a TV, you can use this box. This change is lumped into the same pile as the death of telephone operators, rotary dialing, and party lines. Change happens.



You are right, it has nothing to do with VCR's, except that some people are technologically challenged. I haven't purchased one of these boxes yet (I have satellite TV and don't need one) and I don't think that I'd have a problem with it. However, some of the local TV stations have been doing "tests" for those people who have analog only TVs and have been offering assistance to some people who are having difficulties. Those people do exist. They are being forced to buy something that they didn't need (I have yet to find one of those boxes actually priced at $40 that the government gives you) and have no way of knowing how to use it. 

Change happens, but it should be decided upon by those who use it. I hated trying to be the "ninth caller" when I had a rotary phone and someone else had a touch tone. I hate even more not being able to talk to a customer service representative because you can only use the automated system. Neither of those were mandated by the government.


----------



## jmabray (Feb 5, 2009)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Footer View Post
> Moving to DTV we are able to have the same amount of information sent out in a smaller spectrum at a higher quality. Not only that, but television stations can broadcast up to four stations at a time in their alocated bandwidth if they so choose. PBS in my area is using this to its fullest.
> I agree that there are many advantages to DTV and many consumers will benefit from it. What I am saying is that there was no reason for the government to dictate DTV. The digital airwaves have hit radio stations as well, but the government didn't mandate it. Sure, I'm missing programs because I haven't switched out my radio, but that is my decision as a consumer.



It really has more to do with freeing up the spectrum for other uses than it does the actual quality of signal.

The radio spectrum is extremely finite. There is only so much to go around and we have used all of it at this point. There is now a new technology that allows the same amount of information (actually much much more) to be broadcast in a much much smaller amount of bandwidth. Since the federal government mandates who can use what and when of the radio spectrum, it makes sense for them to mandate this as well. This switch frees up so much space for things like your local fire company to have much more reliable communications. Or your local Ambulances. These are things that are desperately needed. Blame 9-11 and Katrina for pointing these deficiencies out if you want to (they really did) but it is going to happen - needs to happen and is ultimately a good thing. (and trust me, i find very little good about government intervention in anything....)


----------



## lieperjp (Feb 5, 2009)

So now it looks like it will be June 12, 2009.


DTV Delay Receives Mixed Reactions - PC World

All that's needed is Obama's signature on the bill. I wonder if he will? 



And yes, I do know that he supports it.


----------



## ruinexplorer (Feb 6, 2009)

jmabray said:


> It really has more to do with freeing up the spectrum for other uses than it does the actual quality of signal.
> 
> The radio spectrum is extremely finite. There is only so much to go around and we have used all of it at this point. There is now a new technology that allows the same amount of information (actually much much more) to be broadcast in a much much smaller amount of bandwidth. Since the federal government mandates who can use what and when of the radio spectrum, it makes sense for them to mandate this as well. This switch frees up so much space for things like your local fire company to have much more reliable communications. Or your local Ambulances. These are things that are desperately needed. Blame 9-11 and Katrina for pointing these deficiencies out if you want to (they really did) but it is going to happen - needs to happen and is ultimately a good thing. (and trust me, i find very little good about government intervention in anything....)



Well, kind of. We can't blame 9/11 or Katrina for the digital move, even though many things are pinned on those events. The original move was established with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which was signed into law under the Clinton administration, so we can't even blame the Republicans. The top 30 markets all had to have their digital stations operable (though not necessarily broadcasting full time) by November 1999. In addition to making the switch to digital TV, the act also opened the door to additional communication companies to utilize the phone lines at a regulated rate "in order to foster competition." Realistically, many of those companies have subsequently been bought out by the big companies reducing the competition. There have been fewer owners of TV and radio stations as well (even though we are seeing an increase in what is offered). I think this falls into the category of "good intentions paving the way to Hell."

Are there benefits to this act? Sure. Are there drawbacks to the digital conversion. Absolutely. Should the government interferre? Matter of opinion. While I maintain mine, I hold absolutely nothing against anyone with opposing viewpoints. No offense intended.


----------



## waynehoskins (Feb 6, 2009)

ruinexplorer said:


> Well, kind of. We can't blame 9/11 or Katrina for the digital move, even though many things are pinned on those events. The original move was established with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which was signed into law under the Clinton administration, so we can't even blame the Republicans. The top 30 markets all had to have their digital stations operable (though not necessarily broadcasting full time) by November 1999. In addition to making the switch to digital TV, the act also opened the door to additional communication companies to utilize the phone lines at a regulated rate "in order to foster competition." Realistically, many of those companies have subsequently been bought out by the big companies reducing the competition. There have been fewer owners of TV and radio stations as well (even though we are seeing an increase in what is offered). I think this falls into the category of "good intentions paving the way to Hell."
> 
> Are there benefits to this act? Sure. Are there drawbacks to the digital conversion. Absolutely. Should the government interferre? Matter of opinion. While I maintain mine, I hold absolutely nothing against anyone with opposing viewpoints. No offense intended.



I think the Delay Act is a fine mess. It leaves consumers even more unprepared (read the FCC's Public Notice) -- they will allow most stations to, if they want, complete the Transition as previously scheduled, while most of the consumers are thinking that they have until June to get an ATSC receiver and get a decent antenna up. Many stations are likely to go ahead as planned, since that's a multi-hundred-KW (or few-MW) NTSC transmitter that they have to keep running alongside the lower-power ATSC transmitter.

It also makes the Post-Transition channel assignment switch a mess in markets where a station has a Post-Transition assignment on a channel where another station has either an analog or a temporary digital up.

End result: consumers think they have until June, when in reality they don't. They'll turn on their TV on the 18th to watch the news, and there's no news. And they're either going to complain to the stations about the mandated top-of-the-hour crawls or ignore them entirely. Never mind that they're also thinking the world will magically go HD everywhere when it's not.

Wonderful mess.


----------



## ruinexplorer (Feb 6, 2009)

Let me say that I'm thankful that I don't watch much TV. Also, I'm glad I'm not working in broadcast right now. Ugh!


----------



## lieperjp (Feb 6, 2009)

One detrimental thing about DTV that I hate is how when the TV loses signal, or receives poor signal, the picture freezes. Honestly, I'd take the fuzzy rabbit-ear tv over a frozen TV. I'm glad for cable.


----------

