DTV the lose-lose extension that will now be a tool to show how gov will screw up everything.

[CK_John]

Instead of biting the bullet and making the transfer, the DC crowd tries to avoid the problem.

Now 500 TV stations are ready to pull the plug anyway. Now it becomes a bigger problem at the worst possible time.

Wash Post:
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/02/10/ST2009021002493.html>

[mucifer]

1. it's only television. I get more worried when they screw up the economy.

[Old Codger]

3. LOL

Looks pretty much like they did that already doncha think?

[CK_John]

6. This is a Newt bill board of how gov screws up that people will pretend to understand,

the economy they will not even try to get hold of.

[elocs]

2. All of my stations but PBS are going to switch off analog next Tuesday

and from what I've read, staying on until June will cost PBS $22 million. Come June there will still be people who are not ready who will then want another delay. Wait for it.

[mwooldri]

21. Some PBS stations are turning off the analog switch anyway.

Donations are drying up and they still got to pay the electric bills. Broadcast analog becomes a low priority.

Mark.

[elocs]

27. The commercial stations in my area have found only 1% of viewers are not ready for the switch.

The irony is that PBS in my state (Wisconsin Public Television) has probably done more to inform their viewers than anyone else and that's saying a lot. They broadcast lecture series from UW-Madison and this morning there was an hour long program that has aired many times about the switch to digital and took questions from the audience.

[The_Casual_Observer]

4. Rumor has it that the TV reception is actually worse than analog.

And the slightest interference & it cuts out altogether & expensive antennas are more or less required after the fact.

[Occam Bandage]

7. Rumor has it that it shrinks male viewers' penises, and murders kittens. nt

[elocs]

9. Well, that's really as valid as post #4, but more clever. n/t

[The_Casual_Observer]

11. Actually all of that was reported on NPR over the weekend, but

I'll leave it at that. (I really don't know why I am bothering to respond to your stupid nonsense).

[smalll]

20. And the rumor is true. Screw all the latte-"liberal" Mac-using Whole-Paycheck-eating sneerers -

It's quite simple really - with regular old free TV, for many Americans who lived not so close to major cities/major media markets, a lot of our signals came in snowy/staticky (especially in the warmer months, when tree foliage and heavy, humid air weakened reception.) --

But at least with analog, perfection was not required -- if people (like me) were not TV addicts (Oh! It must be wide-screen! And HD! And I just MUST see every last zit on my favorite porn stars!) we could deal with less-than-perfect reception.

But as you put it, digital, being digital, is a case of 0 or 1 -- on or off ---

There ARE many non-pay-TV peole (Why Do We Hate America, Us Traitorous Non-Cable Deadbeats?) near major cities for whom digial TV WILL improve reception and the number of channels received. But there's MANY non-pay types for whom digital TV will cut snowy channels down to "No Signal." God forbid you live where there are trees. Or hills, or ridges!

[Starbucks Anarchist]

30. If you're not an addict, you won't have withdrawal symptoms.

[mwooldri]

22. Not. True. At. All.

The problem is that people who watch on analog have been putting up with crappy pictures for YEARS.

Most people who watch analog usually do on indoor antennas, and only get at best 1 or 2 channels in perfectly clearly. The rest of the stations are "watchable" and some are "unwatchable". For me, that's true.

I switched to digital and instead of 3 good signals, 3 watchable ones and 3 unwatchable ones, I now get 6 solid main channels (plus associated subchannels), and 3 ones that are OK but do cut out periodically.

If it forces over the air viewers to finally buy adequate antennas then it'll be an investment that pays off eventually. a $60 8-element UHF bowtie outdoor antenna when properly installed will be worth the invested money.

Mark

[mwb970]

23. Not everyone has the good experience you did.

You were very lucky. Just wait for the horror stories when the forced switchover begins.

[mwooldri]

25. No, not lucky at all. Just educated enough about TV reception.

A near complete degree in electronic electrical engineering and a desire at a younger age to work for BBC Engineering kinda did it for me.

We also don't need to wait until the forced switchover begins for the horror stories because they're happening NOW.

My point is that the American TV broadcast network could be a whole lot better. It was designed by "market forces" - who else designs a broadcast system for a TV market where all the broadcasters have their own facilities located in completely different parts of the TV market? e.g. most of my channels are are broadcast from the south of my location but my NBC and ABC are to my northwest, my PBS is to my east and Ion is to the northeast. Plus you have an uneducated public about broadcast TV reception - I see too many homes relying on internal antennas as their means for receiving TV and these are places where they could with a bit of time and a spare $100 get a reasonably good outdoor antenna installed. And they wonder why they're getting crappy pictures - it's all about the antenna (and location also helps greatly too). Add to that politics: Europe went with the DVB protocol, which uses a method which has been proven to be better than the ATSC system picked for here when it comes to reception within inner-cities and suburban areas where reception is more likely to be on indoor antennas. ATSC is more optimal for more rural areas and if you live a long way from a broadcast station and relying on over-the-air you should have an outdoor antenna anyway.

Apartment owners are guilty too: they contract with the cable company and you can have an easy hook up with them, or you can fight the apartment owners to get a dish or antenna installed. Communal broadcast antennas are rare, as are communal satellite dishes.

Admittedly if you just want your broadcast channels cable do offer a fairly compelling package: in a lot of areas you can fork over $10/month and get just your broadcast channels. Or you can invest a bit of time and money and spend $100-$200 and get a good antenna system that means when the cable goes out you get TV still.

To add to this: I feel the digital transition here is being done all wrong, was planned all wrong and too many people will be left without TV post transition. It should have been done area by area, and the transition assistance should be more targeted. Those people who can afford to pay full price for a converter box should. Those who can't afford it at all should have it for free plus have someone come to their house, install it, and if needs be also improve their antenna system. Those who can pay something should pay a little. That's how the UK authorities are doing it, anyway.

I don't know if there's any volunteer groups helping out people with the switchover ... if there were in our local area, I'd definitely help out. But then again it will escape a lot of people because cable penetration is pretty deep and satellite uptake is very strong in the rural areas (why have that massive antenna with a rotator? We can get a small dish and have multiple rooms but we sure hate the $70/mo bill)

Mark.

[GoCubsGo]

29. I haven't noticed much of a difference...

I actually get much better reception on the South Carolina PBS stations with digital. The analog reception was inconsistent and weak. The digital channels are clear as can be, and I have yet to experience interference problems with them or any of the other networks. I am also able to get the local CW network, which previously required a cable subscription. In addition, I get better digital reception of stations from Columbia, which is 60 miles away. That is, when I can get them. I can't get any of them on a rainy day--digital or analog. When I can get the Columbia channels, the picture is much better in digital, and I am able to get them more frequently, and more of them. The only downside I am seeing is that I cannot get the digital Georgia PBS stations. I can get the analog channel, but the reception was never great.

It should be noted that some converter boxes are better than others. I have Dish Network TR-40, which Consumer Reports rated highly as one of the no-frills boxes. It was $40 plus shipping. I don't have a roof-top antenna. I use $12 rabbit ears. I might get better reception of the distant stations with a roof-top antenna, but since they tend to run mostly the same programming as their local counterparts, why bother?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

31. You're kidding, right?

:rofl:

[EraOfResponsibility]

5. this is going to be a real mess

[Occam Bandage]

8. Ugh. The delay was a bad idea, and underfunding the boxes was incompetence.

Too bad, because I think the DTV switch is a good idea.

[The_Casual_Observer]

10. Well I guess if you say so, it must be true.

[elocs]

15. As a casual observer you evidently casually know what you are talking about too.

That's really too bad.

[Chisox08]

19. That is probably why the extended it

Just like anything in the Bush administration it was underfunded and incompetently ran.

[4lbs]

12. Eh. 95% of television here in San Diego is already digital. So the "switch" will be virtually

unnoticed by people here.

The key will be what the parties that have already purchased the analog spectrum do with it once the switch is complete.

[mwb970]

24. San Diego 95% digital? This article says that *no* SD stations have gone all-digital yet.

4 local TV stations set to go digital on Feb. 17
(SignOnSanDiego.com, February 10, 2009)

Any day now, President Barack Obama is expected to sign a bill that will delay the nation's long-planned Feb. 17 switch to digital television by four months. But four local TV stations are planning to switch next week anyway.

All of San Diego's television stations are currently broadcasting in analog and digital. As of Feb. 17, San Diego's ABC, CBS, Fox and CW outlets will be shutting off their analog signals, and viewers who receive their TV signals via “rabbit ears” or rooftop antennas will find that those stations won't be there anymore.

(snip)

The Nielsen Co. and Cox Communications estimate that 65,000 local households are not prepared for the Feb. 17 switch. Not all of San Diego's TV stations are making the switch on that date. Local NBC outlet KNSD/ Channel 39 and independent station KUSI/Channel 51 are likely to keep their analog signals until June 12. Public television station KPBS/Channel 15 is planning to switch in April.

“We're not corporately held, so we thought we would do a little bit of listening to see if the numbers drop for the unready households,” said Keith York, director of television programming for KPBS. “There is a close link between our prime-time viewers and the unready households. We want to make sure our viewers are up to speed.”

Will the switch be "virtually unnoticed" by the 65,000 unready households?

:shrug:

[4lbs]

28. By "digital", I mean that nearly everyone in San Diego County subscribes to cable, satellite, or

gets the local channels OTA via ATSC tuners built into new television sets.

The "switch" will happen by almost all the local stations themselves on February 17. They didn't feel a need to delay because of this fact.

Of the 3 that are planning the delay, only KNSD (NBC) has some significant viewership. KUSI is little watched in comparison to the other channels. It shows mostly "Maury", "Jerry Springer", reruns of various "Law and Order" and "CSI" shows. Only KUSI's local news and morning shows are different, which few people in San Diego even watch. KPBS has a little higher viewership than KUSI, but still much less than KNSD. KNSD though has always been a laggard when it comes to technological improvements. It's been among the last NBC stations to broadcast HD. EVen then, it's among the last to show syndicated shows like "Ellen", "Wheel of Fortune", and "Jeopardy" in HD. Of the 4 major network stations (KFMB = CBS, KGTV = ABC, FOX5 = FOX, KNSD = NBC), it's the only one that doesn't have it's local news at 5:00pm and 11:00pm in HD, even though many of the other NBC stations in California have already done so.

That 65,000 is just an estimate based on some old data at least a year old. There have been people that have already bought the converter boxes with the $40 coupon cards, so the overall cost is just $5 or $10. So, the real number that will be blacked out is much lower.

No one I know or have come in contact with here for the past several months will "go dark" on Feb 17.

[high density]

13. Worst possible time?

It was a fine time until the idiots in DC extended the deadline. I don't blame stations for their desire to drop the analog transmissions. The electricity costs alone to run two transmitters instead of one must be a huge drag on the operation.

[Uzybone]

14. Made up issue.

Most channels are already digital. The broadcast channels will continue to dual broadcast for a long time (some plan to do so for 2 years after the transition). I too was against the extension but there is no issue here to the average TV user.

[CK_John]

16. Sorry you are misinformed the analog spectrum has been partially sold already.

The transition doesn't depend on the transmission of the signal but the reception via antenna.

[elocs]

18. To tell the truth I have seen lots of misinformation and disinformation about digital

and people who somehow think they know what they are talking about.

[elocs]

17. All of my full powered stations have been digital for months,

but they have also been spending thousands of dollars to also broadcast an analog signal. On February 17 all of the commercial stations in my area will shut off their analog signal and be all digital and they are waiting no longer than that. Since it does cost more money to broadcast both analog and digital stations want to switch as soon as possible and if June 12 is now the last and final date that will be the day that full powered station shut off analog for good. There will be no broadcasting analog for a long time.

[mwooldri]

26. FCC info: this is the list of stations that will go digital only next Tuesday.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-221A5.pdf

See if your station is on the list.

The switchers look to me to be mainly a ton of PBS stations, small market stations and the smaller owners. The Houston market isn't switching any time soon... but if you're in Mobile, AL come switchover and if you're not digital, break out your bible and follow along to TBN.

Mark.