DTV Transition....Ready or Not Ready

[t0yrobo]

From what I've heard with digital it's either coming in pretty clearly, or not at all. So no snowy in between, which would be a problem for a lot of people.

[Limewater]

on another note, which im not positive of as far as OTA goes; on a cable system, the higher frequencies that carry digital signals won't travel as far as lower frequencies that carry analog signals. basically higher frequencies will suffer more signal loss per foot, than the lower frequencies. If they're using higher frequencies for digital over the air broadcast than they were for analog, they're going to have to amplify it to all hell to have a prayer of keeping the same broadcast radius.

This is correct. Over the air, higher frequencies do fade faster than lower frequencies. They also suffer greater loss when having to pass through media like building, etc... If you go to a high enough frequency, you pretty much need an unbroken line-of-sight between the transmitter and receiver.

The DTV transition, however, is only sort of forcing stations to higher frequencies. Actually, the band allocated to television is being chopped down from the top, with the higher frequencies being put to other uses. But, at the same time, television stations that broadcast from the lower end of the frequency spectrum (Channels 1-13) are also going to fall under more stringent power regulations. They will not be allowed to broadcast with nearly the power they did before.

This power restriction is kind of pushing some big broadcast stations to move to higher frequencies (still within the television allocation band) where they can broadcast with more power. The old television band was about 54 to 806 MHz, with a couple of gaps in there for other things. I just checked and the new standard will cut the TV band down to 54-692 MHz, with the same gaps as before.

So, yes, some people will have poorer television reception with the DTV switch. And, with DTV, as has been mentioned, if you have a bad signal you get nothing. So, instead of seeing Dr. House with a light ghost image to his left and right along with a little snow, you might get nothing. But, if before you had a decent signal and just a little snow, you might get a perfect picture. I believe the cutoff between being able to view a channel and getting nothing is a signal-to-noise ratio of about 30dB, but I could be remembering incorrectly and it can vary a little with cheap hardware, etc...

[lordofduct]

stupid digital tv... I don't think my mother's ready. But meh, she doesn't really watch TV really.

[Scooter]

For some people, the only that will make them switch is the inability to watch TV because they haven't previously prepared themselves. The government shouldn't coddle the dimwits that aren't prepared. Hell, the government was even willing to help pay for a converter box, how much more can they do? Nothing. Throw the switch.

Actually, they haven't thrown the switch yet because they would be excluding around 6 million homes that still rely on rabbit ears for their signal. A very high percentage of those homes are low income (either the elderly, inner-city or - more often - extremely rural). I don't know that those demographic make them "dimwits." Yes, the government offered coupons for boxes - but they underestimated demand, ran out, and not everyone was able to get one. I believe that more coupons are due to be issued in this interim (part of the reason for the push back).

I think the delay is reasonable, and I don't know that those who are ready are really missing out on anything by having to wait. Especially if the delay means more people will be able to have access to TV, I'm for it.

Three years isn't enough time? Perhaps if some folks hadn't waited until late into the process they wouldn't have run into shortages at zero hour. Heck, I've had a converter box for over a year and I really don't even need one (I was thinking about dropping cable at the time).

[lordofduct]

You know not everyone is at the front line of technology... or living in the city. Nor did any of the commercials really make any sense all together unless you already knew something about it.

The commercials actually reminded me kind of the old Rogaine commercials back in the early nineties. "What the HELL are they trying to sell me? A man riding a bicycle? I don't need one of those!"

Bar in mind, we aren't talking about some 20 something year old guy who jerks around on the interwebs all day and plays videogames. We're talking about grandparents and people living in rural areas. People who hardly even know that a television receives its signal through airwaves, let alone what digital or analogue is and that they both can be sent through the same airwaves, yet won't work on their tv.

I mean come on, some of these people, like take my grandmother, didn't even see a TV until they were 30+ years old. They're more concerned about their diabetes and emphazima then learning about what the hell digital is. Just because they didn't brush up on their tech talk, they should miss out on the local news, emergency warning broadcasts, and other provincial services the TV is used for?

On that... how well do you, a tech savvy 20 something year old, know what digital is? Do you know what it is well enought to explain it to someone? Give it a try, and let me know what kind of blank stares and looks you get from these people. I'm betting it'd be similar to if I sat you down and tried to explain to you the process of driving and loading a car hauler and the laws you must obey on the road and why all the restrictions put on truck drivers exist and how you figure out the prices to charge per vehicle depending on the fuel rates at that time... and figuring in the projection of fuel rates in the future... along with taxes and insurance hikes, because you know, that truck and load needs at least 1 million dollar coverage to even be legal!



...

My whole point is this digital turnover was poorly implemented by the government. They didn't do a very good job at explaining it to people. I for one don't even know WHERE to get this coupon except through the interent... something my grandmother has never heard of, and my mother doesn't touch because she's doesn't see the necessity in spending the little money she has on a computer and internet!

I'm not saying we should coddle these people forever, but I'm saying that we did a poor job getting these people ready!

[Limewater]

Three years isn't enough time? Perhaps if some folks hadn't waited until late into the process they wouldn't have run into shortages at zero hour. Heck, I've had a converter box for over a year and I really don't even need one (I was thinking about dropping cable at the time).

Don't you think that if you were poor (at least, by American standards) and you had the option of spending money on a converter box you don't really need yet, you might put off spending the money until you had to?

Besides, they ran out of coupons a full month and a half before the transition. Is an individual planning a month and a half ahead for his television needs not enough lead time?

[jonathang]

For some people, the only that will make them switch is the inability to watch TV because they haven't previously prepared themselves. The government shouldn't coddle the dimwits that aren't prepared. Hell, the government was even willing to help pay for a converter box, how much more can they do? Nothing. Throw the switch.

Actually, they haven't thrown the switch yet because they would be excluding around 6 million homes that still rely on rabbit ears for their signal. A very high percentage of those homes are low income (either the elderly, inner-city or - more often - extremely rural). I don't know that those demographic make them "dimwits." Yes, the government offered coupons for boxes - but they underestimated demand, ran out, and not everyone was able to get one. I believe that more coupons are due to be issued in this interim (part of the reason for the push back).

I think the delay is reasonable, and I don't know that those who are ready are really missing out on anything by having to wait. Especially if the delay means more people will be able to have access to TV, I'm for it.

Three years isn't enough time? Perhaps if some folks hadn't waited until late into the process they wouldn't have run into shortages at zero hour. Heck, I've had a converter box for over a year and I really don't even need one (I was thinking about dropping cable at the time).

cable is costs too much money . antenna tv it is free and save money i watch the japanese channel and PBS

[Scooter]

Well, I'm no tech savy 20-something myself. A person doesn't need to understand HOW a television works, only that a change is going to occur and if they want TV they'll have to make sure they can still get it. THAT message by the government and local TV stations has been ABUNDANTLY clear and easy to understand and if you are watching TV you can't help but see the message (and if you're never watching TV it probably doesn't really matter to you anyway). Additionally, the message of the switch over has been made in many channels and not just on the internet, it's been everywhere. Just because you may not consume other forms of communication does not mean the message hasn't been made through those channels. And no, I don't live in the "big city" myself and what do you know I've seen and heard about the switchover so much I'm personally sick of it.

What ever happened to having at least a modest amount of self reliance and keeping one's self and ones friends and family aware of what's going on in the world? The govenment should not be relied upon to do things for you! I really don't see it as the government's ultimate responsibility to prepare ME for a change. Make me aware of it, maybe, but good grief when are people once again going to take responsibility for shit that happens in their lives instead of continuing to be victims and remaining dependent upon a system that rarely has their best interests at heart?

The DTV change is inevitable and probably overall a good thing. The government set a date far in advance, got the word out and even tried to help prepare and help monitarily get everyone to a point where the transition could happen with minimal negative impact. AND, if I was so poor that a $50 converter box (most of which would be paid for if I asked) I probably also wouldn't own a $200 television set now would I? And if television is important enough for me to have bought a set, another few bucks could be scrounged up to prep for the conversion if I really NEED TV programs in my life.

Honestly, the world would probably be a better place if more people turned off the damn set and read a book or two. Hell, you can get lots of great books to read for FREE at the library.

Let's also review the bigger picture (no pun intended), if Joe Sixpack can't get TV shows what impact does that have? Not a lot. But if TV stations are precluded from flipping the switch they lose money, a LOT of money. If those same TV stations go out of business due to the added economic burden, and in this economy this is quite possible, then EVERYONE loses one more media outlet and lots of fine(?) programming altogether which affect more than just Joe himself.

Throw the switch, be done with it. Six million aren't prepared? By whose measure? Are those all households which would really notice? In a country of over 300 million people, isn't that a pretty small percentage? Throw the switch already.

[Limewater]

What ever happened to having at least a modest amount of self reliance and keeping one's self and ones friends and family aware of what's going on in the world? The govenment should not be relied upon to do things for you! I really don't see it as the government's ultimate responsibility to prepare ME for a change. Make me aware of it, maybe, but good grief when are people once again going to take responsibility for shit that happens in their lives instead of continuing to be victims and remaining dependent upon a system that rarely has their best interests at heart?

I'm actually with you in terms of expecting people to have some amount of self-reliance. My personal political views are pretty Libertarian. But at the same time, the government is the one forcing the change on everybody. People don't have a right to television, but this is an example of the government poking in and directly interfering with commerce in this area. It's not unreasonable to believe that this gives them some responsibility.

AND, if I was so poor that a $50 converter box (most of which would be paid for if I asked) I probably also wouldn't own a $200 television set now would I?

No. That's silly. I have never bought a television in my life, but have acquired three in good working order without even trying. I was offered a fourth, very nice old console model, but my wife and I simply don't have space in our small apartment for it. Functional televisions are all over the place cheap.

Honestly, the world would probably be a better place if more people turned off the damn set and read a book or two. Hell, you can get lots of great books to read for FREE at the library.

Sure it would. That's not really relevant to this issue, though.

Let's also review the bigger picture (no pun intended), if Joe Sixpack can't get TV shows what impact does that have? Not a lot. But if TV stations are precluded from flipping the switch they lose money, a LOT of money. If those same TV stations go out of business due to the added economic burden, and in this economy this is quite possible, then EVERYONE loses one more media outlet and lots of fine(?) programming altogether which affect more than just Joe himself.

I've heard people make the argument that stations will lose a lot of money over this. However, it is my understanding that the transition deadline is just that-- a deadline. Analog stations are not forced to continue broadcasting analog until then, and can "flip the switch" at any time. If they continue to broadcast the analog signals, they must have a reason. They are, after all, businesses.

Serious question: How do stations lose money by delaying the transition? Are they forced to extend the leases on their broadcast bands? It seems like the only people who should be losing money is the FCC due to not being able to collect leasing fees for the newly-freed bandwidth. But I am seriously asking this as a question, not an argument.

[Scooter]

Serious question: How do stations lose money by delaying the transition? Are they forced to extend the leases on their broadcast bands? It seems like the only people who should be losing money is the FCC due to not being able to collect leasing fees for the newly-freed bandwidth. But I am seriously asking this as a question, not an argument.

They lose money by continuing to operate an outdated, worn out analog broadcast equipment which take more power to operate and which needs constant repair and maintenence to keep running. If they have to continue using this equipment, they have to spend money to keep it running which they wouldn't have to have spent had they cut over to the new equipment which they have already spent a lot of money on but which isn't being used. Some stations have been broadcasting two signals, one analog and one digital and the cost to maintain two signals for a longer period is, well, more expensive.

The public stations across the entire state in the state where I live converted to digital last year, no last minute reconsiderations, no BS, just set a deadline, told folks about it and DID it. Guess what? The world didn't stop spinning, we didn't all fly off into space. It works and people get better signals from greater distances which mean more people in outlying areas have a greater likelihood of getting that programming with a quality signal. So I guess Nebraska is more progressive than the rest of the country?

Seriously, one of the motivations why Nebraska Public TV made the move was so they could scrap their outdated, overly costly to maintain analog systems. They planned ahead, had already bought the digital stuff and couldn't see the point of having that investment simply sit there and do NOTHING. I don't think they got too many complaints and this is a broadcast system that blankets the entire state from Omaha (big city) to Valentine (where the cows outnumber the people). My point is, it was not a small investment in time or money.

The broadcasters are ready, the populace SHOULD be ready too so I don't see the point of further delays.