Some TV stations to end analog signal on Feb. 17

[MicaelS]

Source: USA Today

By Peter Svensson, AP Technology Writer
NEW YORK — Television viewers who use antennas and were expecting a few more months to prepare for digital TV may not have much time left before their sets go dark: Many stations still plan to drop analog broadcasts in less than two weeks.

When Congress postponed the mandatory transition to digital TV until June, it also gave stations the option to stick to the originally scheduled date of Feb. 17.

That means the shutdown of analog signals, which broadcasters had hoped would happen at nearly the same time nationwide, could now unfold in a confusing patchwork of different schedules.

Lawmakers wanted to address concerns that many households that receive TV signals through an antenna are not prepared for the switch. They were also mindful that a government fund has run out of money to subsidize digital converter boxes for older TVs.

Dozens of stations around the country now say they are going to take advantage of the option to drop analog broadcasts this month.

Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2009-02-06-digital-tv_N.htm

---

Better get your converter now if you can afford it. But I think this whole thing is going to be a clusterfuck of epic proportions.

BTW, don't tell me people don't NEED access to TV. With things the way they are, TV is all some people have for entertainment.

[bluestateguy]

1. Hopefully a lot of people will lose access to MSM crap

that could be a good thing.

The people who rely on rabbit ears tend to be, let's face it, less educated and more likely to be manipulated by MSM nonsense than the rest of us.

[onenote]

2. yeah, them dumb ol' minorities and elderly and lower income folks

that disproportionately rely on over the air television are too stupid and cutting off their access to information will make them much smarter.

And smart people, people with college degrees and access to cable telvevision, satellite and the internet -- they're all progressives.

:sarcasm:

[Coventina]

3. I'm a college instructor with a graduate degree and I have "rabbit ears"

Thanks for painting me with a broad brush.

I make less than $20,000 a year, with no benefits, as full-time teaching positions in my field are VERY hard to come by and I'm early in my career.

But yeah, I'll be much better off with no access to broadcast TV. Thanks for your concern and understanding.

[dysfunctional press]

24. it was your career choice- so stop bitching about the pay.

nt

[Coventina]

26. I mentioned the pay only because I keep hearing "helpful"

suggestions like subscribing to cable, or satellite, or downloading shows from the internet (which would require expensive high speed service).

[dysfunctional press]

28. then what does the graduate degree have to do with anything...?

:shrug:

[Coventina]

30. I was responding to a post that said the people losing access

to TV in the transition were "less educated" than "most of us".

Check the thread, there are several other replies to that post similar to mine.

[dysfunctional press]

31. so- are college instructors WITHOUT graduate degrees just stupid?

:shrug:

[Coventina]

34. There are very few college instructors without graduate degrees.

But no, I wouldn't call them stupid.

[CreekDog]

62. You should respect teachers since you need one to improve your reading comprehension

his point was that he didn't want to be painted with a broad brush for not having cable or digital tv.

his other point was that it would be difficult to afford it on his income.

and after reading your 3 posts on this, my reading comprehension says you're being a jerk.

[Bill McBlueState]

65. that was both

rude and at best tangential to the point the poster is making.

[asthmaticeog]

4. Funny how opinions differ.

I think you'd have to be a colossal fucking moron to pay $80 a month for 500 channels of nothing on cable. :shrug:

[man4allcats]

6. Oh what bullshit!

I have a degree and so many graduate school hours (graduate school hours with a high GPA) that people have often asked why I don't have two degrees. That education has made it possible for me to make a living as a biomedical researcher for over 15 years now. And I use rabbit ears! And I'm smart enough to know that stereotypes lead not to truth but to falsehood.

[guitar man]

8. I receive TV at my home through an antenna only

And I manage a TV station for a living. :crazy:

[hamerfan]

68. Off topic, but...

I'm an out-of-work Master Control operator. Can you help? :7
hamerfan

[aquart]

14. I've got a masters from Columbia and rabbit ears.

What a snotty, spoiled ass remark.

[Ms. Toad]

55. Ditto what everyone else said.

>>The people who rely on rabbit ears tend to be, let's face it, less educated and more likely to be manipulated by MSM nonsense than the rest of us.<<

I'm really surprised to know that "the rest of us" have more than three college or graduate degrees (which is what this person who relies on rabbit ears has).

Frankly, I think it's a pretty unwise choice to pay $30-$80 a month for cable/satellite (at least while I still have a choice and can get TV without paying for it). I can think of a lot better uses for that money - saving for my retirement so that I am less likely to be a burden to society or my daughter, paying my daughter's college tuition (so that she can become another "less educated" and "more likely to be manipulated" rabbit ear user, supporting public television (which I watch via my rabbit ears), feeding the hungry - or supporting other good causes.

[Bonhomme Richard]

5. I have noticed my local cable screwy lately.

Seem like the might be in a limbo between analog and digital. It's the only way I can explain the audio and video out of sink, freezing of picture, etc.. It's really beginning to get annoying.
For info.. I only have the basic, basic cable package (23 channels) so all the channels I was getting were analog I suspect but the change is making me nuts.

[gauguin57]

60. Mine's been screwy, too ... out-of-sync audio/video, freezing or pixelated picture ...

... also, on my old analog TV (over which I have no control of the aspect ratio on individual channels) I'm getting cut-off picture at the edges on some channels that are advertising they've gone digital, and letterbox on others.

Goofy.

[northernlights]

7. aw, gee, what'll we do without "reality teevee" bullshit?

There is plenty of free entertainment without teevee. Try going for a walk or planting a garden.

Fuck the stations that go ahead and switch. I'm already living without PBS. No more getting heartburn while MOnica Mouth babbles over everybody and McLaughlin drools over her. :puke: No more listening to the insular ignorance knowns as Brooks.

My local ABC ran a commercial this morning that they're delaying until June 11. Good, so I can still watch the weather report, which is all they're good for anyway.

[midnight]

9. Maybe you are on to something. Americans with less t.v. might

mean an awakening to what is going on in our own communities. Maybe, some will attend a common council meeting and discover some things need to be different? Or if your really brave attend one of those school board meetings.

[uncle ray]

19. or "maybe"

if we had better free programming that included more public access programming and televised city council meetings then people would be motivated to attend the meetings and take part in the process.

[guitar man]

25. that's not a bad idea

Public access on over the air broadcast would be a great idea for another PBS digital side channel :thumbsup:

[KoKo]

10. There are elderly and disabled who may live alone without much family who will be

affected. It's not all about your or my individual preferences, though.

[uncle ray]

18. beautiful irony.

TV sucks, but you were watching it today.

[mntleo2]

11. Rabbit Ears/Converter Box Here

I am finding that the stations that have converted are "better" for pictures. As for content? Well I have had cable and to be honest I am not any less informed without it. I use the "internets" and in my area you can still get 56k for free and if you have a wireless card, some areas are free (my area isn't ~ yet). I find I am far ahead of most people who have cable and say to me, "Did you hear about ..." and I can finish the sentence plus some analysis I have seen, as well as the YouTube recording of it ~ about 2 days before they heard about it.

If newspapers think they have some problems going out of business, well cable is next imo, which is why they are trying to capture the Internet and make it their own by bribing the FCC into giving it to them. Keep fighting it, it is our best chance for real information.

Now the next thing we need to do is get Internet coverage to rural and inner city people, as well as the equipment they need to access it, so they can access what we have! Thanks to people like Al Gore there IS government funding that would help with this: http://www.digitaldivide.net BUT IT NEEDS YOUR SUPPORT!

PLEASE support bridging the Digital Divide, if you want an informed public who have ready access to information that will support progressive issues! It is what has made me a progressive and I am low income. Thanks to the computer access I have had early on, it is my passion to connect others who would not otherwise be connected ~ and I am not the only one. There are people even in DC (as well as at University of Massachusetts) whose mission is the same!

Cat In Seattle

[guitar man]

12. In my market

Survey says almost every station intends to shut down analog on 2-17.

[aquart]

16. What market is that?

[guitar man]

17. Oklahoma City nt

[suston96]

13. Check your local cable company. Their licenses require cheap, basic cable plans ......

....for those who need or want it due to finances.

[aquart]

15. Uh huh. Def ine "cheap."

Privatizing TV is a REALLY bad idea.

[suston96]

23. Cable One here in Prescott AZ has a "Lifeline Plan" for $20.00/mo. "Local channels" ....

http://www.cableone.net/LI/Pages/localchannellineup.aspx

Channels 2-21 are the Basic Channels at $20.00 per month.

[Coventina]

27. $240 a year isn't cheap IMHO. n/t

[dysfunctional press]

29. oh well...i guese you'll be able to enjoy more reading then...

less than $1 per day is pretty cheap for anything.
btw- how much would you say that you spend on coffee or soda in a given year?

[Coventina]

32. I don't drink either. n/t

[dysfunctional press]

33. just water then?

[Coventina]

36. Pretty much. I buy milk to use for cooking, but I don't drink it

straight.

[dysfunctional press]

37. it obviously isn't that important for you to have it then, is it?

if it isn't worth 66 cents per day, you obviously don't even need it- so why worry?

[Coventina]

38. My worry, as a liberal and progressive, is that the public airwaves

are becoming increasingly privitized, and services to access them are becoming more expensive, not less so.

As a liberal and progressive I believe we should be moving to increased access at lower prices, if not free entirely.

[dysfunctional press]

39. are you suggesting that the government supply everyone with a tv and antennae?

because that's the only way it's going to be free.

and btw- access IS getting cheaper- especially when you account for inflation.

[Coventina]

40. Actually, if I had my druthers

the government would provide free, nationwide wi-fi and a program that provided a new computer to every citizen over the age of 18 once every 5 years.

[dysfunctional press]

42. i'm sure you would...

:eyes:

whereas the responsible citizens would rather choose a career path that paid their way.

[Coventina]

44. Right, because you do not now, and have never benefitted from any government program

Give me a break.

I'm sorry that my low-paying (at least for now) career path as an educator is so offensive to you.

:eyes:

Back at'cha!

[dysfunctional press]

61. actually, i take advantage of my disability entitlement from social security...

but that's an amount that's based on how much i paid into the system.
and it;s also different than wanting the government to create a program to buy me home electronics for my entertainment.

btw- not all educators are 'created' equal- some are good, some are very good and others are as the saying goes- the ones who can't "do".
the college educators that i could do without are the ones that teach some arcane subject where the only use for it is for the students to become professors of it themselves, to teach the next generation of professors in the subject(s) that is/are of no real practical use to anyone in the real world.

[Coventina]

63. Well, once you have been "paid back" all that you have ever

paid into it, I'm sure you will quickly write to ask that your benefits cease, right?

:-)

And the suggestion that wi-fi and computers are only for entertainment purposes is just plain amusing. I suppose all the charitable organizations working to get computers into the hands of school children in developing nations are doing it just so they will be able to get Myspace accounts.

I really don't care what your personal opinion of college instructors is. I don't need your approval. My students consistantly tell me that I change their lives for the better, which is why I do what I do.

But go ahead and consider me to be a leech on society if that makes you feel better.

on edit: typo

[dysfunctional press]

69. for a college-level educator, you sure don't know much about real-world things...

like how insurance works- you don't just get back what you paid in. and that's what fica is- an insurance program.

but that's why a lot of people who decide to live their entire lives safely ensconsed behind the ivy-covered walls do so- they just can't understand how the real world works. :shrug:

i'm sure that you're exactly where you belong.:hi:

[Coventina]

70. I wasn't the one griping about people not paying their own way.

:shrug:

I hope all the belittling of me that you have done on this thread has helped your self-esteem.

:hi:

[dysfunctional press]

71. paying for insurance is part of paying your own way.

stay safe. :hi:

[aquart]

54. $20! Cheap? LOL! That's $240 a year.

[Bill McBlueState]

66. wow, $20

That's not awful, but that same tier of service is more like $10 in the markets I've lived in recently.

[mntleo2]

20. IF they have a contract that makes them monopolies

...if the city/town has a special contract with the cable companies that make them essentially a monopoly, then often part of their contract is to make cable access inexpensive and Internet free to *certain* people (such as non-profits who might provide free computer labs). But if there is more than one cable company in the area, they rely on the companies being "competitive" which they are not. There is a place these companies cannot lower their price to compete as expensive upkeep and where free or low cost access is not recoverable.

Often these cable companies used government money to lay the fiber optics for pennies on the dollar. While fiber optics, once laid is pretty stable, it is expensive to lay initially as the tubing is glass and shatters easily (tho now they are also using a kind of plastic/glass in some places that is more flexible, but adds to the price of the cable). Fiber optics is created by sending a ray of light down those cables (glass tubes) and is much faster than telephony/analogue, but the mechanics of laying it is ...not easy or cheap. Light does not go around corners unless it has a mirror to relay it, and it also needs to use something like prisms to break down the light into separate colors (each color is a "bandwidth" in essence).

In exchange for the funding, televion/internet access companies also *might* "give" low income cable access, but you might notice that the access is almost exclusively Internet, it is *not* television. You will notice that satellite access for television and Internet, but especially Internet access via satellite is VERY expensive. But for fast Internet, it is often the *only* access for rural areas as the only other alternative is via 56k, which is just becoming obsolete to use with so much need for fast access since web pages depend on fiber optics to operate. This is because satellite equipment is not funded as much, if ever. To only have 56k access is for sure not conducive for rural small businesses who need faster access to operate their accounting stuff (cash registers, software access to databases for inventory/ordering, etc), or for people who might be able to work remotely, much less it is creating a digital divide even for those who could afford cable but not satellite. See?

I am just saying that the best thing we can support, which is in the stimulus bill, is the laying of more cable, especially in rural and inner city areas, but it IS expensive. Satellite access is actually more expensive to get it up into space, keep it in orbit, and maintain it if there are problems. But in addition to tax dollars they WILL try to charge us something for access, if we do not keep it in the government domain rather than allowing orivate companies to handle cable and Internet access.

So in essence sometimes the "Internets" IS a "series of tubes" and is expensive to create and maintain ~ but quickly becoming essential for just about everyone. Expecting for-profit companies to do it and also provide inexpensive access is not an easy thing to make happen if not impossible. Cable television will be obsolete soon unless it can find a way to become relevant, imo. Television does not even begin to be as diverse as the Internet, diversity is what gives relevance to many people who have different needs, from data bases to information access to cultural and community needs, at least that I what I have observed.

My 2 cents

Cat In Seattle

[onenote]

21. exclusive franchises have been illegal since 1992

Congress banned exclusive franchises in 1992 and a few years ago the FCC took steps to make it even easier for new entrants to apply for and receive franchises.

And that's not even taking into consideration the fact that characterizing cable as a "monopoly" is pretty silly given that cable's share of the subscription television market has dropped from 90 plus percent to under 65 percent since 1992 and that over 30 percent of the market is controlled by two satellite companies that don't need local franchises to operate.

As for the claim that cable operators used government money to lay fiber optics, I'd like to see a link to back that claim, which I believe is simply wrong. In fact, rather than getting government money, cable operators have to give the government money -- typically five percent of their revenues for using the public rights of ways.

That being said, I don't disagree with the point that the money in the stimulus bill to support broadband deployment in areas where it has been uneconomical for such deployment would be money well spent.

[dysfunctional press]

35. then how come there's only one cable provider in our area?

:shrug:

[mntleo2]

43. In Seattle as well ...

...because THEORETICALLY they can circumvent the "monopoly" aspect by agreeing to contract conditions with cities and municipals that monopolies often do not do, such as making access less expensive and not dominating the prices. However you can have all the competition you want, there is still basic costs to run a company that makes it impossible to lower the price any further and still make a profit.

The argument is often around the monopoly issue, which IS a valid concern. Unfortunately upper income people do not understand that their own personal interests are with the low income who cannot afford anything, much less monopolies, since THEY can afford the price. So as Internet access and now speed is actually causing a divide not only with inner city low income people but with rural areas who has little or no access except by 56k, it kind of puts at least inner city poor and rural folks of ALL incomes at an even keel because they need internet access and computer knowledge to get jobs, kids need access so they can learn how to operate and use computers and the Internet,learning materials are more and more on line or with software, etc, the middle and upper classes (not all but most) have remained SILENT when activists raise a fuss when these contracts are agreed upon with municipalities ~ as well as how the FCC regulates it.

My 2 cents

Cat In Seattle

[mdmc]

46. totally the same here and around most of the local area..

[onenote]

48. actually, there are two companies with franchises to serve Newburgh NY

Time Warner is the incumbent. But back in late 2007, Verizon was awarded a franchise to provide cable service in Newburgh (as well in an number of other NY communities).
http://newscenter.verizon.com/press-releases/verizon/2007/verizon-to-bring-tv-choice-1.html

I don't know the status of the build out by Verizon, but there is nothing stopping them from offering a competing service and they apparently intend to do so.

[mdmc]

49. well, you can get verizon internet access

but they still don't have anything to put up against twc.
I am not sure if there is a contract dispute (between the city and verizon) or what..
I have verizon internet...

Peace and thanks for the link

[onenote]

47. well, if you live in Elgin Illinois, there actually are two franchised operators

Comcast and WoW. Not sure whether ATT,which is begninng to offer video service in various communities, or Verizon, which already has dozens of franchises and over a million subsdribers for video, have plans to be a third entrant.

If a community has only one wireline video provider, its because a competitor hasn't chosen to enter that particular market yet. One of the hang ups for new entrants was that the franchising authorities tried to impose all sorts of burdensome requirements on the new entrants that made it uneconomical for them to compete with an established incumbent. The FCC preempted those rules a couple of years ago, and the number of communities with more than one wireline video service (along with two national satellite services) is growing.

[dysfunctional press]

52. there's only one provider available in our subdivision.

comcast.

and when we lived in chicago, our neighborhood only had one choice for a provider- i don't even remember the name anymore- i think it was comcast by the time we left- it had changed hands several times.

that's why we've had directv for quite awhile now.

[onenote]

56. In all likelihood, its not be cause there is only one franchisee

its because the second franchisee authorized to serve your neighborhood hasn't chosen to build there yet. And as your choice of DirecTV indicates, cable isn't a monopoly -- you had two other options - DirecTV and Dish.

[dysfunctional press]

57. by that reasoning, there has NEVER been a cable monopoly anywhere...

because satellite television was available a LONG time before dish network and directv came online.
sure- you'd need a 6-foot dish, and it was pricey- but it WAS available.

[onenote]

58. except that BUD (big ugly dishes) generally didn't offer a comparable array of content

And there were significant limitations on their use because of their size and zoning restrictions.

But more to the point, are you suggesting that DirecTV and Dish aren't competitors to cable?

[dysfunctional press]

59. if they are, then why does any town need more than one cable franchisee?

:shrug:

[onenote]

64. why do towns need more than a ford, chrysler, and honda dealership?

Whether a town "needs" more than one franchisee isn't really the issue. Its whether more competitors -- and more choice -- is better for consumers.

[dysfunctional press]

73. was there ever legislation passed requiring more than one car dealer in a town?

:shrug:

[onenote]

74. legislation doesn't require more than one cable operator

it simply bars exclusive deals. And that legislation was passed before the small dish satellite industry had come into being as a competitive alternative to cable.

[mntleo2]

41. Yes you are right ...

...fiber optics came out of the government's backbone starting with military and extending to the education systems (kind of vice versa as the Internet originated at the University level and then was taken over by the military), who were the closet to the backbone and then extended out from there to educational systems (gigapop is what they called it). They were the place where the initial federal funding began. However, as the Internet has grown and for the Digital Divide, government funding is continued within the educational systems (http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/2000086.pdf ~ you might scroll down that PDF and see where the schools get most of their funding, which is from school districts and then the governemnt, with businesse funding being the last place). From that point on, the laying of fiber optics have been up to cable companies who were willing to undertake the expense ~ but one might ask what money came from where? The backbone IS governemnt maintained, upgraded, and funded, and you can bet if they EVER use private industry's piping, they WILL pay for it.


A point (not the main one) I was trying to make here is that, since the early days of ARPNET out of Stanford University, cities, states and nationally have been the ones who have kept the backbone, where the Internet originate. As the Internet grows, the government is *still* the one from whence the Interent comes ...

I am sorry if I was not clear enough for you ...

Cat In Seattle

[4lbs]

22. All the local stations here will adhere to the Feb 17 deadline, as they've been running ads saying

such.

I guess that's because 95% of the people in San Diego County have already gone "digital" as of last year. 90% subscribe to either cable or satellite, and 5% get local channels OTA via antenna hooked up to an ATSC tuner in their new TVs.

That leaves just 5% requiring the upgrade. I figure half of that number will have upgraded by the time Feb 17 rolls around, thus 2.5% of the county's population still to upgrade.

[mdmc]

45. I'm saving my $40.oo coupon - I think it will be worth cash one day

Folks will be like, "What is TV?"
"T.V. was like a PC, but it only had video, no internet or software."

[Mudoria]

50. The Charlotte area stations are making the switch on 2/17

Their reasoning is that they've been telling folks for almost 6 months that the switch would be made and their all set to go and delaying it would be a mass of confusion to everyone.

[willing dwarf]

51. Yawn... don'treally get why everyone's so excited.

If you've got 3 stations or 800 there are usually onlly three shows a week I'd want to watch.

Life is too short to spend it watching TV! (Probably too short to spend it on the internet on a Friday night too! Poor me!)

[guruoo]

53. 'Got thirteen channels of shit on the T.V. to choose from....

I've got electric light.
And I've got second sight.
And amazing powers of observation.
And that is how I know
When I try to get through
On the telephone to you
There'll be nobody home.'


Just throw it away.
Do it.

[Bill McBlueState]

67. It's weird

Every thread about this DTV switch turns into a bunch of mini flamewars over posters' TV viewing habits. There's rarely any discussion of the policy. That's DU, I guess.

[sendero]

72. The station in Sherman TX...

... has already shut down their analog signal.

At our country place, I have a converter box in the bedroom, but not the living room, where can now get only snowy analog signals from Dallas. :)

I get the feeling that not many stations are going to postpone going to digital only, now that years of preparations have been made.