FCC official says DTV transition will be 'messy'
One of the five members of the Federal Communications Commission, Republican Robert McDowell, said Tuesday that the DTV transition "will be messy...but we'll get through it."
The switch-off of analog TV broadcast signals this February may cause even those who make the switch to lose some channels.
(Credit: CNET)The statement comes three weeks after Commerce Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye, a Democrat, warned that the next presidential administration may inherit a "communications crisis."
McDowell urged broadcasters, the party he identified as having the most to lose in the transition, to step up their informational campaigns and to tailor the information to local markets in the months leading up to the transition. As an example, he said that technical differences between local markets may require campaigns that urge consumers to also purchase a new antenna to get their DTV converter boxes to work.
To parse McDowell's statement, he's probably referring to the fact that, even if consumers buy a converter box and hook it up to their current antenna, they may not receive as many channels as they did before the transition. Digital TV signals use a completely different transmission method from analog, and in many cases we've heard reported, people often can't get the same number of digital channels as analog ones.
As reported in Broadcasting & Cable, FCC chairman Kevin Martin told Congress last month that, after the switch, approximately 15 percent of digital TV stations will not reach as many viewers as their analog signals did. Many viewers during the test of the DTV switchover in Wilmington, N.C., lost access to NBC, for example. Martin said the FCC's "highest priority" is to address the loss of coverage after the switch, and that FCC engineers are working now to identify the problem areas. How much can be done at this late stage is an open question, however.
What's your experience? Have you or someone you know made the switch from analog to digital broadcast TV? If so, did you stop receiving certain channels, or even received more? Let us know in comments.
David Katzmaier reviews HDTVs for CNET. 
It's TV, people. Seriously. if you want to watch TV, buy the junk you need to make it work and move on with your life. No one is telling these people they have to sign up for a $150/month satellite package - get the coupon, get the free converter box, and worst case, you have to drop $75 on an antenna to keep your 15 year old TV working. I'd say that's a bargain.
I think the biggest problems with the switch over in the US are going to be mostly in more remote rural areas. However, those are the people who are most likely to be using OTA TV.
A lot of the benefits, however, are mainly that DTV is more flexible and effecient. It allows for clear pictures, better sound, more choices, and improved data services (better closed captioning for instance).
Goggle "DTV transition" and get a clue.
Broadcasters bid in a government auction for new frequencies to transmit their channels. The proceeds of that auction went into a grant program for public safety agencies to purchase equipment and conduct training/exercises related to interoperable communications.
To consumers, it's pitched that you are just getting better television. Behind the scenes though, public safety agencies are rapidly modernizing their ability to communicate with each other. Personally, I won't argue with better TV and better emergency response with minor cost to the consumer.
What gives?
I live in Dallas/Fort Worth area, and decided to convert to digital before the deadline to have more time to address issues. I had old analog TV with regular antenna (no cable or dish), and had good reception for all major networks plus several smaller ones. I bought new digital TV and hooked up to my existing antenna -- and was disappointed to find almost all the major digital channels were spotty at best. And spotty with digital means the picture goes away completely. I then bought ($50) a new, larger VHF/UHF antenna and installed in my attic. This improved reception, but its still spotty. I will say that I'm getting some other smaller digital channels (and sub-channels) that I did not get before witih analog reception - but the major channels are the most important.
I'm hoping that at the cutover in Feb or shortly thereafter, the digital signals will be boosted as the broadcasters no longer have to send their analog signals - but I have not read that to be the case.
There are going to be lots of pissed off people because they were told one thing (get a digital tuner and thats it) when really that is not the case.
Anyway, when it works it really is quite amazing. I didn't expect miracles to begin with and I knew that digital reception characteristics are quite different than analog. Of course, sometimes I still wonder about the FCC's logic of choosing 8VSB modulation to begin with when COFDM most likely would have been less prone to multipath interference. However, the latest 5th and 6th generation tuners are supposedly pretty good with the multipath which I guess I agree with considering that the signals I do manage to receive on digital most likely are reflected or refracted signals to begin with (I live in a hole almost).
I can see the benefit of switching because it looks better and the picture is great also the guide feature is handy but I wonder why the government if doing it? To make money from the sale of the unused channels? I resent then comment above making the comment that TV is not a right. Which is true but if a free service such as TV is stopped and some are left without TV it should be made available to all it shouldnt be a big hassle and have to buy a bunch of stuff.
- by deadheadtechguy October 17, 2008 8:02 AM PDT
- The transition is being pushed in effort to broaden the range of wireless communication. The bandwidth that analog transmits on has been auctioned off to wireless communications companies nationwide in efforts to better our service in communication. The diminishing availability of wireless bandwidth has been an unaddressed issue since the inception of the cell phone. For example. 9/11/01 During/after the attacks, communications between local and federal authorities were limited because of the amount of people that were trying to use their cell phones/walkie-talkies during the attacks. That is a key reason why the FCC is pushing the digital conversion. The frequancies used for anolog broadcasts are also great for cellular communications. Acutally, once the transittion goes into effect and cellular companies implement their broadcasting in the new frequencies, our cellular services will be much more dependable than ever before. In a nutshell. We going to a new age of communications, and analog tv just doesn't fit into that picture. The transition will allow some new incentives, while leaving some in the dark. I initiall thought that the gov. was trying to force us into some kind of contract with local/nationwide televsion providers, and also with the manufactuars of new age televisons. Although you probably can't totolly discredit this idea, I don't see that being the main focus of the transition. Simply put, the transition will give us better cellular communications and will bring all of us into the new age of digital entertainment. Embrace it!
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (31 Comments)