Perspective: When regular TV broadcasts go dark

If you were caught off guard when the federal government rescheduled the changeover to the daylight saving time, be prepared for another shock just over the horizon.

On February 17, 2009, the analog over-the-air TV broadcasting we've known for more than 50 years is scheduled to end and be replaced by digital broadcasting. Once television stations drop their analog broadcasting and go digital, old-style analog TV sets will effectively go dark.

While moving the nation to a superior technology, this analog-to-digital transition could cause massive problems for Americans still using analog sets, especially those who get television programs off the free airwaves.

The change to digital broadcasting was mandated by Congress as a way of updating the nation's television broadcasting network in one fell swoop. It's already stimulating innovation in both broadcasting and consumer products, and helping move computing, gaming and communications (along with television) closer to digital convergence.

Consumers also will benefit from digital broadcasting's higher-quality pictures and flexibility in entertainment choices. But the federal digital-broadcasting mandate is turning the usual market-based mechanism of technology adoption by consumers on its head. It artificially compresses into months an analog-to-digital transition that would take years, if market forces were allowed to operate.

The federal digital-broadcasting mandate is turning the usual market-based mechanism of technology adoption by consumers on its head.

Normally, technology adoption involves a choice between competing solutions in the marketplace, but the federal mandate removes from consumers the power to choose and buy technology. Consumers will not be able to continue receiving free over-the-air broadcasting.

By February 17, 2009, those who wish to continue watching TV will have had to purchase something new, such as a digital-capable TV or a special analog-to-digital conversion box. Or they may abandon the free over-the-air model altogether and buy cable or satellite services. If they don't, television will go dark for them.

Roughly 21 million American households--more than 50 million people--currently use free over-the-air broadcasting, and every one of these households will have to wrestle with the analog-to-digital broadcasting transition problem.

According to AARP (formerly the American Association of Retired Persons), lower-income and older Americans are disproportionately represented in this group. The elderly, in particular, rely heavily on television as an important connection to the outside world, yet AARP fears that they're the ones most likely to get lost in the transition.

Since the usual market-based mechanism of technology adoption by consumers is absent, the federal government bears responsibility for mitigating the transition.

The government is focusing its efforts on subsidizing the conversion boxes. These boxes will enable households to keep their current analog TV sets and continue to receive over-the-air broadcasting after the transition to digital occurs, though some households could experience reception difficulties with their existing antennas.

Each household will be required to submit a request for as many as two $40 coupons that can be used to partially offset the cost of two conversion boxes.

The government's transition plan seems to be too little, too late. It's uncertain whether enough inexpensive conversion boxes will be available in advance of the transition deadline. There's no word yet on who is going to install them and who will pay for the installation.

In addition to the nuisance of acquiring and using a coupon, analog TV owners will have to grapple with another question: how far will $40 go to offset the total cost of purchasing and installing a conversion box, and possibly a new antenna? And will lower-income and older people actually sign up in large numbers to get these coupons?

Finally, information is sketchy about safeguards to prevent fraud and price gouging during the short time frame millions of households will be given to modify their television setups.

The analog-to-digital broadcasting transition could cause more than a little inconvenience for millions of people, especially lower-income and older Americans. Scant consumer education and weak support is in place, yet the nation is only a little more than 22 months away from a new "daylight saving time change effect."

The clock is ticking.

Biography
Michael Hulfactor is managing director of DecisionTrend Research, which specializes in business and consumer adoption of technology.

More Perspectives

[Al E. Gator]

the real news...

While the FCC made headlines enforcing some imaginary moral <br />code over .05 second titflash, they have really bungled(ignored) <br />their oversight of broadcast technical requirements. Giving away <br />bandwith to (commercial) broadcasters for their digital signal <br />and the subsequent grab of soon to be open analog bandwith by <br />everyone else is a joke... unfortunately a joke that most people <br />are either ignorant of or can't understand.<br /><br />Gonna be a lot of pissed off poor people when they cannot <br />afford to watch "judge me" or "Oprey"... you can be assured, <br />digital or not, there will be subsidies so that advertisers can still <br />have 23% of the broadcast hour. Personally, a digital signal has <br />no benefit for me...if they really want me to watch the crap they <br />are producing, they can pay for an upgrade I did not ask for.<br /><br />The FCC under the leadership of Colin Powell's (qualifications???) <br />son (first GWB term) was a great example of nepotism and <br />cronyism that is American government these days. YOUR TAX <br />DOLLARS ASLEEP AT WORK...

[Al E. Gator]

clarification

...did not want my comment to seem like an attack on our current <br />administration... I think they are ALL questionable at best... Here's <br />a little background on Uncle Tom's boy... liberatarian my A**, pawn <br />of corporate interests is more like it.<br /><br /><a class="jive-link-external" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Powell_" target="_newWindow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Powell_</a>(politician)

[CommandHerTaco]

I have been overseas for six months.

When I get back, there is no real news on broadcast television. Every time I come home and check what's on it's entertainment news, advertising, and anything they can find that pushes the envelope of human stupidity.

[ewelch]

Unrestrained capitalism...

newspeak for "market forces" has completely failed to spur this <br />transition. It should have happened years ago, but the television <br />stations have been too cheap (Station owners still want to take <br />their families to Tahiti every year, how can they do that if they're <br />spending it on infrastructure?) to take the plunge.<br /><br />It's exactly the same problem with cellphone standards adoption <br />in the US. Business models are oriented around quarterly profits. <br />People panic if there's any spending that isn't absolutely <br />necessary to shore up the next quarter's profits. If there isn't an <br />increase, stockholders panic and stampede off to some other <br />company's stock that hasn't enough horse sense to see the <br />benefits of long-term strategic investment. Why is America so <br />far behind the rest of the world when it comes to cellphones? <br />Stupid CEOs and bean counters at Cellular companies. That's <br />why.<br /><br />So, if "unrestrained market forces" were allowed to determine <br />when the transition to digital were to occur, we would all be <br />dead before it happened. Because it wouldn't. They'd always <br />come up with excuses.<br /><br />I suspect such rhetoric as this hair-on-fire "can someone please <br />think of the old people?" plea is just the beginning. And has <br />happened in the past, the deadline will be rolled back to <br />something like 2012.<br /><br />I only hope that when I retire somewhere between 2020 and <br />2030 (depending on how much congress acts like a drunken <br />sailor with our Social Security funds) that the transition will be <br />over. Maybe by then everyone will at least by HD.

[arluthier]

Footing the bill.

"depending on how much congress acts like a drunken sailor with our Social Security funds"<br /><br />Yeah right... and where in the world do you think they will *borrow* the money for these 40-dollar coupons. Even if only one quarter of the number of members of AARP were to get only one coupon it would ring a total of $360 million. That flushing sound is my SS benefits going down the toilet, before I can get any of it in 2033.<br /><br />Television and "adaptor/converter" companies are going to be making a killing in the next few years just in replacement sets.

[dmm]

My plan...

is to just stop watching TV altogether in 2009. Solves many problems: technical, social, spiritual, artistic, physical, etc. Thanks, FCC!

[Christopher Hall]

So let me get this straight

The problem is that we're unsure that Americans can effectively save up $20 (the box costs $60, minus a $40 credit) per television that only receives OTA broadcasting to ensure that they're allowed to continue to watch TV?<br /><br />(Source of cost: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=6579" target="_newWindow">http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=6579</a>)<br /><br />And, to top it all off, they have about two years to do it? Three pennies per day, starting now, would do the trick. It's starting to sound like one of those awful late-night guilt-trip ads on TV: "For only pennies a day, you too can enable a poor American to sit on his tuckus and do absolutely nothing productive. So what are you waiting for? Call today."<br /><br />Pardon my callous, but I'm not seeing the problem. Television is a luxury, not a necessity. No one is obligated to do anyone any favors over the minor inconvenience of changing the broadcasting standards. Frankly, I'm a little annoyed the government's even offering the credit.<br /><br />Regarding the elderly, if the AARP is so concerned about it, why not offer their members the credit to ensure they aren't left out in the cold? Their classic inaction shows they're only in it for the politics of it, instead of being interested in actually doing anything useful.

[hpmoon]

This article has no credibility...

Without mentioning the NTIA RFP, this article has no credibility. All of these questions are asked and answered, or asked and slated for answers in the next few months.

[robmx]

Answered?

The questions will be asked and answered when analog is turned off and this disasterous train wreck of a digital TV transition finally hits the wall. <br /><br />All the NTIA is doing is pointing fingers at who is at fault ahead of time because someone there knows enough to realize that this is truly going to rain voter retribution down on DC.<br /><br />Congress and the FCC have been epically incompetent in this transition and it will all come to a head in 2009. Then we will finally look overseas to what other countries have done without subsidies and mandates. Countries that are seeing a rebirth of over the air broadcasting and true competition for cable and satellite.<br /><br />The US has the worst modulation in the world. It is the reason that Congress has been forced into this subsidy program and had to mandate receivers. They have to force feed us the junk we will not freely buy.

[paulsecic]

Congress

will delay this til 2112. Joe six pack won't know nada!

[David Kelson]

Chicken Little

I understand that you are trying to sound the alarm. This <br />transition has been many years in the making with the 2009 <br />deadline pushed back multiple times. When the time comes I am <br />sure that market forces will prevail and people will find a way to <br />make the change to digital television. Also, as we get closer to <br />the Feb. 09 date I am confident that people who have the most <br />to lose i.e. broadcasters and advertisers, will help make sure <br />that the transition goes as smoothly as possible. Lastly, if people <br />could figure out how to hook up a videotape recorder in the <br />1970's I would imagine that they will be able to do the same <br />with a converter box in 2009.

[robmx]

Hooking up!

Hooking up the converter box is not problem. Getting it to work is another. They won't in very many cases.<br /><br />The US modulation is not made to work in dynamic multipath areas like near airports or big cities. A lot of people who still depend on over the air broadcasting live there. They have no way of putting up the FCC desiged for 30 foot directional rooftop antennas that the US garbage DTV modulation requires. Even if they could put up such rather expensive antennas they also will not work since dynamic multipath is not solved by such ugly Yagi antenna assemblies. <br /><br />No this is an unmitigated disaster we are just going to have to have before anyone wakes up and tells it like it is.

[dtrues]

Unfounded Accusations

The 2009 deadline is not some less-than-thought-out plan. It?s actually and extension of the original deadline that would have switched us over this year. That original switch over was known for more than a decade, but still broadcast networks and consumers weren?t ready for it. <br /> We, all of us, ignored it because we didn?t want to pay extra to get ready. The networks didn?t want to give up their broadcast spectrum, and the consumers like their cheap TVs flooding in from Asia. Well, surprise, it turns out we probably should have paid a few extra dollars when we were buying our new bigger televisions. <br /> As for those affected by the switchover, the coupons should offset the cost, and if they do not, then I?m sure that Congress will increase the rebate, especially for those living on fixed incomes. We cannot allow a small portion of the population to get in the way of reallocating a massive block of the public spectrum. TV currently uses the same channels it has used since the 1960?s. That bandwidth can do much more good with modern technology. Public emergency services and high-speed wireless internet that could be deployed in rural areas are just a few of the possible uses for the spectrum.

[robmx]

Broadband???

This spectrum will not be used for broadband. It will be used for broadcasting by new broadcastes who will use it to fill the vacuum left by current broadcasters who ignored their over the air spectrum in favor of courting Congress for must carry on cable rights. <br /><br />If you don't believe me look at chanels 55, 55 and 59 that have already been sold at auction ( Auctions 44 and 49). They are all being used for BROADCASTING using REAL modern well designed modulaltions. The rest of this spectrum will be used likewise even if the winning bidders plan otherwise. If they try broadband they will fail and then the spectrum will return to broadcasting. <br /><br />See Aloha (Hirewire) they said at first that they would use channels 54 and 59 for broadband but switched. Smart people at least recently.

[demathewsjr]

Total ignorance of the subject or deliberate misinformation

1. Most people have satellite or cable so their TVs won't go dark<br />2. A new antenna is definitely not necessary<br />3. A fifth grader would be able to hook up the converter box (cable in, cable to TV, power cord, Duh!!)<br />4. The transition to digital started several years not months ago.

[Mycroft_514]

bull

I have cable, but what about the little handheld TV I paid good money for? Where am I supposed to get a convertor for htat?<br /><br />As for the HD already started, speak for your big markets. We barely have any here yet.

[robmx]

A bit of Ignorance Here to.

The converter box will not hook up to cable. The converter box is a bare bones lowest common denominator piece of junk that works with 8-VSB the worst modulation in the world. <br /><br />Hooking it up will be easy, getting it to work another story. No subsidy for the required 30 foot rooftop antenna and no reason to believe that such an antenna will work anyway with this turkey of a modulaltion.

[jterhar]

So your stance is: "F" em all.

Are you saying that everyone who has a TV/VCR/DVR attached to an antenna deserves what they get? Have you hooked up an ATSC set top box? Remember back in the analog days when there was a car going in front of your house or someone walked in front of the rabbit ears? The picture got all weird and then cleared up. In the digital world, here is what that looks like: The picture degrades to macroblocks, freezes and blacks out. Then, a second or so later, it comes back. ATSC Digital doesn't handle multipath well. The power level of digital is far less than the analog transmitter and many people who get acceptable analog reception on rabbit ears are going to have to switch to outside antennas to get a reliable picture. Who will put those antennas up? For free? My grandmother put crinkled up aluminum foil around the rabbit ears because she had read about it in Family Circle magazine. Are you saying she would have been able to hook up a set top box? There are a lot of people like my grandmother. Who here is willing to go door to door in poor or predominantly elderly neighbor hoods helping them hook up their TV? For free?

[Hardrada]

This article HAS plenty of credibility!

While it is understandable that many people will think it's a good thing for the rapid transition to digital television over-the-air, as a former (now retired) broadcast engineer, let me point out some of the realities that are overlooked by the digital and Internet advocates:<br /><br />1. Digital signals are running in a new frequency domain, higher than VHF analogue television. Many people are using standard VHF antennas, including some that just add a couple of shorter dipole elements to increase the bandwidth, and are predominantly tuning in to VHF channels. When all-digital TV occurs, those VHF frequencies will go dark. The efficiency of an older antenna and feedline, at UHF, is very low. Many types of leadin and balun adaptors have poor response at UHF. Since the digital signals have no range at all between "no reception" and "flawless reception" the station will be received, or not received at all: nothing in between; no "noisy signal with snow": just no reception. So it will usually be necessary to replace the (1) antenna; (2) the feeline; (3) all the connectors and adaptors, as well as giving up the old VCR, which won't be usable for time-shifting.<br /><br />Now, the irony of this is that those people who are early adaptors and quite eager to upgrade equipment will enjoy the challenge and appreciate the results. Those who are elderly will have to do much more than simply use a $40 credit slip to continue to get the television that they have been used to for most of their lives. <br /><br />2. Many people will take the view that this change is subverting their established rights to the free flow of information. If "free broadcasting" is not established by precedent (using the same television broadcast standard that was set in place by the early part of World War II), then the word "precedent" has no meaning whatsoever! Digital technology involves significant licensing of various commercial processes that are involved -- both algorithmically and physically -- in the components of the equipment that the user must have in place. All digital broadcasting, and reception by means of the equipment needed to turn the transmissions into something that the user can see and hear -- will have to comply with those licensing rules, established by all the companies that have developed the technology. The same situation does not exist in analogue broadcasting today, as most of the techniques used to generate and broadcast, and receive, the analogue signal are no longer protected by copyrights and licenses, being old technology. So in effect it is the rights owners of the new digital methodology who are in control of the very means of broadcasting. <br /><br />The same thing could have been said about early analogue TV, c.1948, with the Radio Corporation of America, and a few smaller companies, owning the licensing rights, patents, and proprietary techniques: but they've all expired by now and are mostly in the public domain.<br /><br />Could this be one major reason why digital broadcasting is now being pushed heavily by the major payers? It is a source of licensing revenue. Stations will pay tens of thousands -- maybe ultimately millions -- to license holders, for decades.<br /><br />The cost of broadcasting will increase exponentially. <br /><br />Programming quality and diversity is always the FIRST thing that suffers, when this happens. <br /><br />Expect the changeover to all-digital TV to cause a very precipitous drop in overall profit, as broadcasters struggle to recoup the expense of conversion, and the new overhead in license payments. <br /><br />3. The recent spread of quasi-semi-digital broadcasting on the AM radio band in the United States has shown that the hype of its promoters is falling away, as reality sets in. Broadcasts are causing interference; there are problems with the digital transmission equipment failing (due to CPU lockups that are very much like the ones that beset home PC users!); and the zone of digital reception is but a small fraction of the analogue signal footprint. The cost of receivers is OUTRAGEOUS: twenty, fifty times a good analogue radio. The radios on the market are ALL reputed to have inferior performance, as judged not by reviewers in magazines, but by actual users who post their honest experiences on usenet and in forums.<br /><br />Expect an identical situation to occur when digital TV is undertaken, with no fall-back to analogue. <br /><br />4. I am afraid that most young, tech-oriented people simply haven't a CLUE of what it's like to have to deal with the normal, non-tech public. As a broadcast engineer who regulary dealt with listener problems and tried to assist with troubleshooting them, I can testify to the obtuseness of persons who simply had not mastered -- after a lifetime of experienced -- the way to properly use an ordinary AM or FM radio, or television set. There was as large a chasm between MY knowledge of the technology and theirs, as would be seen if someone travelled to Borneo and tried to explain how to use Microsoft Windows to persons who lived in mud huts, wearing nothing more than a loincloth, with hand-made tools made of wood and stone. The radio or TV set -- to the general public I had to deal with -- was a "magic black box". Most people did not realize that an antenna was necessary (indeed, AM broadcast band radios haven't required external antennas since the 1930s.) Now, you are expecting people with this amount of ignorance to cope with: change of receiver; change of antenna (putting up a new one; aiming it; finessing the feeline and connections); change of previous habits with home video recording (remember: most people can't even set the clocks on their VCRs!)<br /><br />It simply won't be pretty.<br /><br />5. The $40 certificate offered by the government -- delivered with all the efficiency we observed in their coping with hurricanes -- will not cover even the most rudimentary home reception situation. By the time one gets a WORKING antenna, pointed properly, into a converter box connected correctly to a conventional television receiver, I expect the total expense to be three to five times that credit certificate (including labor to do the antenna modifications -- remember that old people aren't going to be able to climb the roofs of their houses, or deal with CCTV installations in apartments or condos.)<br /><br />As a broadcaster I had to deal with the growing pains of the introduction of the multiplex stereo system, AM stereo, television stereo, and many other evolutionary changes in technology. But always there was a fall-back: one could continue to use existing equipment. No longer! <br /><br />Normally I would expect such a transition to take the time period of a FULL HUMAN GENERATION. That would be about right: 25 years. We are going to try to do this in a couple of years. And no one is even aware of this yet (aside from those very few of us who follow the machinations of the industry.)<br /><br />Yours,<br />RETIRED BROADCAST ENGINEER

[demathewsjr]

This article has NO of credibility

I was also a broadcast engineer and I am currently a telecom engineer. I will only address the technical errors in your post. Check the FCC rules and you will see that DTV is simply using unused TV channels between the current analog stations. The exception is that the broadcasters will give up channels 60-69 completely. When I got my own DTV receiver years ago, all I had to do is plug my old antenna cable into it. The old antenna and cables will work just fine unless you got a crappy analog TV signal to begin with.<br /><br />The converter box will also hook up to a VCR as easily as hooking it to a TV or even through the VCR to the TV. It might take a sixth grader to do this.<br /><br />Plus, once you hook up to DTV you will discover that many of the TV stations are broadcasting multiple programs simultaneously on a single channel, ie 39-1, 39-2, 39-3, 39-4, etc. Our local PBS station is broadcasting 4 different shows at the same time on a single channel. So suddenly you have increased choices for free.

[robmx]

Where were you?

When they decided on this ugly modulation 8-VSB?<br /><br />People are receiving digital TV on ONE inch antennas on their cell phones using DVB-T, ISDB-T and soon CDMB-TH. Where were the vaunted US broadcast engineers when the US had 8-VSB foisted on us? <br /><br />Otherwise I agree with most of what you said. This digital transition could have been over by now.<br /><br /> If DVB-T had been allowed in 2000 the US would have over 100 million over the air digital receivers already sold or given away. That if we had only the same rate of purchases that has occurred in the UK since 2003.<br /><br />Why didn't broadcast engineers in the US speak up and point out that we were have junk crammed down our throats?

[bunkey91405]

What Promotion of HDTV?

I am mystified, that a government mandated major change to such an important appliance, television and public broadcasting, and technology has had so small and feeble public coverage. It seems the sales people at retailers are to be the major source of information for this change. What a joke!! Where is our government, the FCC or whatever angency or bureau making the public disclosures and providing some source of information to fully inform people of the impact this will have on them? I have no doubt, that literally there will be millions of the American Public wondering why their TVs no longer get any reception, when the change over date happens.

[thenet411]

Move forward, or be left behind

I am so sick and tired of everyone complaining about this. We have to move forward people. This is one way of doing that. Just because you are technically ignorant is no excuse. This is not rocket science. Buy a box. Plug cable A into connection B. Done!<br /><br />We, as a society, MUST move forward. I cannot stand seeing technology sitting on the shelves just because the unwashed masses are "not ready for it." So what if they are not ready for it. <br /><br />Move forward or be left behind.

[mjgolli]

Amen!

Thank God that someone said it!<br /><br />Besides, how soon until ALL tvs have a digital tuner? For, I think, more than a year now all tvs 32" and larger were required to have ATSC digital tuners. The prices still continue to go down.<br /><br />The reason tvs have seemed to get more expensive is because most attractive, large tvs are LCD panels and not tube tvs!<br /><br />And digital tv is NOT high-def! People are not being forced to buy expensive high-def capable tvs to plug these converters into.<br /><br />So, granny will still be able to watch the Price is Right on her 1965 Philco. Her 5 year old grandson will probably have to hook up the box to it, but it will still work fine. Plus, with the converters needing to be made by the millions, they will become commodity items quickly just like $29 DVD players.<br /><br />- Mike

[Jimm1]

"unwashed masses"

Dear net411,<br />You elitist, rude, ignorant, scornful, clueless kid. Your mama must be so proud of you.<br />A great majority of this country's population still can't even logon a computer, much less cope with, what to you, seems to be simple tech. <br />The older generations, 40 and up, are in about the same position as our grandparents were when automibles were introduced. They are technologically uneducated and a little fearful and a lot distrustful of "magic black boxes". Many of them can't afford new tech, either, since their jobs have mostly gone offshore (thanks, GWB et al.) <br />The FCC needs to rethink their policy and extend the transition period to ten years or so, or closer to the average lifespan of TV's.<br />And you, net411, need to learn a little respect for your seniors.

[robmx]

Move forward?

The converter box will not just plug into cable. It only works with over the air broadcast. It will not be easy or simple for many many people. Most of those who still DEPEND on over the air broadcasting are also the LEAST informed and live where the US garbage modulation works the WORST, inner cities, near airports and other DYNAMIC MULTIPATH challenged areas.<br /><br />This is not going to be a picnic. But of course those who have cable are not to worry. <br /><br />This conversation though is all about over the air broadcasting, the free stuff, which is going to go away. Possible by design. How else to explain the pathetic, incompetent and fraudulent way we chose, tested and now are forcing a garbage modulation on the unsuspecting public.

[mustangj36]

It's not a matter of moving forward at all,

it's people feeling forced to pay for something they truly feel they DON'T need, and I agree with them. Just because rich idiots like Mark Cuban are trying to force HD down our throats doesn't mean we have to eat it. I, myself, cannot see enough difference between the cable signal my analog TV gets and the HD sets on display in stores to justify spending the significant price difference. If someone wants to see the zits on the college bball players face then let him spend the money. Me? I couldn't care less and I don't want to be forced to. It's no different than being jacked up for another bullsh*t tax.

[bblande]

Someone finally gets it

The day when technical literacy is the equivalent to traditional literacy is fast approaching.<br /><br />I'm not saying everyone has to have engineer-like knowledge, but if you can't hook up a VCR, DVD player, or digital conversion box to a TV.....well, someone has to say it--you're stupid. <br /><br />BTW, I work for a major electronics retailer and we've had analog TVs with built-in digital converters that are 26" or larger for more than a years now. As of March 1 this year, the federal mandate was that all TVs-regardless of size-manufactured have to have the digital converter, also known as an ATSC tuner. We just put out these new TVs, some as small as 13". <br /><br />So anyone who buys a TV from here on out and only has an OTA signal will be fine.<br /><br />As for the person who said that TV is a luxury...I disagree. Maybe that was the case in the 50s, 60s, and 70s...but it is now a necessity for anyone who wants to be informed on world events. If being informed is a luxury where you come from, then I don't want to go there. :)

[robmx]

Fine?

American consumers who want to receive digital TV with digital TV sets will in very many cases be sadly out of luck. The US has the worst digital TV modulation in the world by a wide margin. If you live in a city, near an airport or heavy traffic, if you have trees in your line of sight you can expect reception problems from dynamic multipath that will kill your reception with drop outs and drive you to or back to cable and satellite.<br /><br />Again the US has the worst digital TV modulation in the world. China and Estonia are light years better off than we are when it comes to over the air digital TV.

[robmx]

Market-based mechanism absent?

YOu say in your article, "Since the usual market-based mechanism of technology adoption by consumers is absent, the federal government bears responsibility for mitigating the transition."<br /><br />Consumers are very good at adopting technology that they want and know of. The US DTV transition is both something that consumers know little of and those that do know something most often reject it.<br /><br />That my friend is the "market-based mechanism" very much present and working. It is just not working to the ends that Congress and the FCC like.<br /><br />That same mechanism is working fine in other countries where digital TV transitions are not only working and being embraced by the public but are breaking all records as to the adoption of new consumer products. <br /><br />Take a look at the UK, Japan, France, Finland and Germany. Satellite and Cable are getting a run for their money by OTA and have trouble raising prices or attracting new customers in the face of competition from a revived and very vibrant reborn over the air broadcast competitor.<br /><br />Not so in the US with our corrupt political process that has saddled us with a digital TV modulation that is garbage along with an outdated codec, MPEG2.<br /><br />Estonia and China both have far far better DTV modulations than the US and Estonia will be using MPEG4.<br /><br />In the US the land of the free we have mandated receivers in our DTV sets because consumers refused to buy what they didn't want and in most cased did not think they needed.<br /><br />In China, that communist country, and Estonia a former communist third world country the citizens will be able to freely buy OTA DTV receivers that actually work plug and play, mobile and fixed and they will, in record breaking numbers while in the US we will be forced to buy unneeded, unwanted, mandated, subsidized junk.<br /><br />And in most cased US consumers will be buying receivers built into their DTV sets that they are unaware of and will never use.

[lkrupp]

Remember party lines?

In my early days with "the phone company" I was placed on a <br />project to move all remaining subscribers who still had a party <br />line to private lines. For those too young to remember a party <br />line was shared by two or more subscribers. They shared the <br />same circuit and could hear each other's conversations. Only one <br />subscriber could use the line at a time. Anyway, the state <br />commerce commission ordered that party lines be eliminated. <br />We (the phone company) sent numerous letters and placed <br />advertising in newspapers telling the public about the change <br />and urging them to make appointments to get their service <br />changed by the cutoff date. I was in the group who had to call <br />the stragglers and those who refused to respond and advise <br />them that their phones would stop working by a certain date if <br />they didn't make the change. I was cursed, threatened, called <br />every foul name in the book, you name it.<br /><br />Some people resist change, period. Let's face it, watching <br />television is NOT a basic human right ok? There should be no <br />subsidies for converter boxes, televisions, et al. Television is a <br />LUXURY item, not a necessity. You can buy a digital tuner for <br />less than $100 and a digital television for not much more. And <br />the price will come down more in the next two years.

[cnetbubba]

Silly Wabbit

Box costs $60 today, hmmm, must cost $30 to make (or less). Two years, Costs $15 to make. No pwobwem.<br /><br />"Government must bear"???? Hmmmmm. Who pays for that government? <br /><br />Silly Wabbit. email's for kids.

[Earl]

Dictation,

When did,(We the People,Of the People,For the People) get kick out &#38; dictation put in place?<br />I alway thouhgt the goverment was to work for the People, not other way around.<br />It's sad that we,(the People) have to fight owr on goverment on things being put on us today.

[mikegord]

digital tv sucks

We have digital tv and analogue tv running side by side in Australia. Digital gives a great picture until someone turns on a one of the new energy saving lights,my fridge turns on. Blip. Flicker. When a storm is passing over the Sydney transmitters I get 'signal scrambled', 'no signal' messages and nothing on screen. With analogue you still get a viewable signal even in the worst of storms. Digital TV is like digital cell phones. When we had the old brick sized analogue phones in Oz they had a huge range. I live in a dip within 1km of two cell towers. I have to go outside to get a good signal. <br /><br />By the way. Set top boxes do not las long. I am on my 2nd set top box in 12 months. I have a color analogue Tv that still works after 20 years,

[fred dunn]

I agree, even over cable it sucks....

I have cable (TW) and in between their distribution hubs the analog signal is digitized into what appears to be MPEG2 and there are a lot of times when the signal just starts to turns to blocks, the audio gets out of sync for a while, it just sucks.<br />Digital TV should be an option and NOT a mandate. The government is using as it stongest case the use of the unused portions of the analog spectrun for emergency services since they can't coordinate their communications now. That is the most ignorant excuse I have ever heard. The idea that more bandwidth for emergency service will form a consensus on use of more bandwidth is an oxymoron but then the government is just a bunch of morons.<br />The only reason they can't coordinate their communications now is polital differences in how they communicate. They don't need more bandwidth, they need more coordination between the agencies (Shah, like that'll hapen) and standardize the equipment (brands, methods, protocols) and stick with it. I was in commercial communications long before the cell phone was the communicator of choice.<br />If they think this is going to "fix" a Katrina style mass communications outage and let the all communicate with everybody else then I have a bridge I like to sell them.<br />What a bunch of Mororns especially the ignorance at the FCC, but then they have ALWAYS been a joke.

[jterhar]

Serious Safety issue is ignored

After recent hurricanes, snow storms...whatever, everyone went out and bought a little battery operated TV to stay informed in case of an emergency. Remember the toxic train wreck in Minot ND? There were equipment failures, missed communications...whatever. Bottom line, first responders could not contact any of the radio stations in the market. No one home. TV told the story. But what if it were an event that included a power outage? Like a snowstorm or hurricane. Just crank up the battery operated TV. After Feb. 2009, those TV's will receive nothing. There will not be a battery operated set top box to hook on. There will not be a $ 59 battery operated TV with an ATSC tuner by that date. What do we do now?

[thenet411]

Buy a new one

If you can afford to buy a battery-operated TV recently, you can probably do it again.

[Schlenker]

Try a radio.

Still the best way to get up-to-date emergency info.

[snafoo1]

Back to the Future!

I was watching "Back to the Future" the other day. During the part of the movie where Marty is in 1955, and is in Lorraine's house, sitting at the kitchen table and talking about the "new" tv that Lorraine's family just got. I was thinking about the tv's of yesterday, today, and tomorrow at that time. It's insane how tv's have changed over the years. From black and white to color to cable to satellite to plasma and LCD and now to HDTV. Pretty soon we won't see a normal broadcast anymore. We'll be able to see each individual strand of hair on a person's head. Technology doesn't stop for anyone! I think i will throw any old tv that i have out at that point. Why bother having a non-HDTV set, and reaping the benefits of the new technology? The crisp, clear picture will make you believe you are there in the movie you're watching, there in the news you're watching, there in the commercial you are watching. Old TV sets will feel so primative, that you're just like Marty McFly, stuck in the past. Nothin doin! I'm gonna get an LCD HDTV in about a month, so i can be ready when that time in 2009 comes around.

[Dr. B]

No one has explained why this is a good thing

So why is this being done anyways?

[Gayle Edwards]

Primarily, two reasons... Unfortunately...

...neither of the REAL reasons actually seem to benefit the American-public, since, most people cannot actually see any real difference in broadcast quality, or increased choice.<br /><br />The first, big, reason was apparently, actually, to allow the FCC to "sell" much of the bandwidth associated with such "analog" ("free") TV-broadcasting. In short, ...it was done to make "...a quick-buck". The reasons given for, "freeing-up the spectrum"... were often given as, allegedly, improving use by government "emergency-agencies". However, the -reality- was... a huge auction, by the FCC, of most of those, newly-freed, frequencies to "private-interests".<br /><br />But... that, monetary, government-windfall is apparently, now, ...long gone.<br /><br />The second reason for "...the move to digital", is actually to allow far greater control of "broadcast media" by various interested parties (I.E. media-companies, and the government). This control includes controlling such areas as, "distribution", "reception", and especially, "recording". Technologically, the "digital medium" is far easier to control, and adapt, on-the-fly with regards to "DRM" (Digital Rights Management). You might want to "Google" the term "broadcast-flag", which will soon, undoubtedly, make yet another, serious and all encompassing, reappearance in legislation regarding "consumer-electronics" (thanks to this, new, "digital TV system"). Another term you should also look-up is "analog-hole", for even more clarification of many of the REAL reasons behind this forced-migration to "digital TV".<br /><br />So, all in all, there isnt much, in the way of, benefit for you, the American-consumer... But, it does answer the wildest-dreams of a few powerful interests.<br /><br />Frankly the, its newer (its digital) so it must, somehow, be better, ...nonsense that is being spewed by shills, trolls, and the ignorant, is just that... NONSENSE. It is NOT demonstrably better for the consumer, and this WILL cause massive problems for many (loss of access, increased expenditures, less private-control, etc.)... And, all of this is, apparently, for the benefit of a few. Furthermore, this entire technological-charade completely ignores the far more time-proven, ...if it aint broke, dont fix it... of OUR reality.<br /><br />But, it seems, The U.S. Government just isnt run by us, for us, anymore. How sad...<br /><br />Anyway, thats my take on it.