Changing from analog TV to digital is costing the taxpayer LOTS - who's getting rich off this?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

There's always a money trail. Why did they do this? Who wanted it? Most importantly, who's getting rich off this, 'cause you KNOW there are people making billions off our tax money which went to this.

Taxpayer bucks have flew out of our pockets and into this unnecessary change. Yes, unnecessary.

MILLIONS of people will be left in the dark because of these changes.

Our country is bankrupt and we're making an unnecessary change. Who's making all this money?

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

1. The purveyors of the technology?

:shrug:

Really, I don't know. Just throwing an idea out there.

[ColbertWatcher]

77. Done in one! Excellent! n/t

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

2. Not "Who's getting rich off this," it's "Who's getting richer off this."

Telecommunication companies.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

4. No doubt - and now they say they need more of our tax dollars....

And even so, they're leaving LOTS of poor and old people in the dark. Why are these companies allowed to pull this sh*t? It's not fair.

[CRF450]

98. Nobody is getting richer out of this!

In fact staying with analog signals is costing the broadcasters a shit load of money. And if you havent figured it out yet, television is a luxury, not a necessity. Shit, even much of the working poor had loads (several years in fact!) of time to save up for a converter box or use a coupon if they're using an over the air tv.

[hlthe2b]

3. Rapidly doing away with "free" broadcast tv...

As many will find after purchasing their ridiculous converter boxes or buying new tvs, spending $$ to try to improve their antennaes Signals they could get before will not come through on digital in areas distant from the towers or in urban areas with lots of competing signal disruption. Analog channels they received free before will be a thing of the past for many with digital. Not to mention what happens with power outages. So, who does profit? Not the consumer, that's for damned sure.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

5. They're always fleecing the poor, the old and the sick - and our politicians...

(who have their banks full of money), don't feel a dent, so they're okay with it.

[GoesTo11]

16. Actually, the tech works really well

I live in an urban area and used to get pretty bad pictures - fuzzy, snowy, hazy, whatever. Now every channel I got before comes in perfect. It's getting the quality of cable tv reception (for that limited set of channels) without paying for it. The box cost $20 with the coupon, and I was kind of annoyed but it actually seems worth it for me at least.

[Captain Hilts]

23. I live just south of NIH and Bethesda Naval Hosp. facing North. Even w/special antenna...

I can't get a strong enough signal to tune the converter. Right now, I'm out of luck.

[Statistical]

37. Right now most digital signals are reduced power.....

Right now most digital signals are reduced power. While an analog transmitter may be 30,000 watts to save money most stations are using the minimum required by FCC for Digital (1500 or 4000 watts).

Once the transition is complete they will use their current high power setup (currently used for analog) to boost digital signal.

Now that cutoff has been pushed back to June so we have a long wait.
Some stations are also moving from UHF to VHF in Feb which has also been pushed back to June.
Due to conflicts their digital signal was on UHF while the old analog signal was on VHF. For some geographies UHF is inferior so they were going to move the digital back to VHF after the analog (currently on VHF) is turned off.

You can't judge digital until
* Analog has been cutoff (June 2009).
* DTV is broadcast at full power (shortly after analog cutoff).
* DTV is broadcast from full height mast (shortly after analog cutoff).
* DTV is on it's final frequency assignment (some moving back to VHF).

None of that will happen for 4 months now. So sit tight and hopefully they don't delay it again in June.

Saying DTV doesn't work right now would be like saying autos suck before paved roads and gas stations were commonplace.
On trails and without gasoline a horse is far superior. The DTV "road" was coming in Feb (tomorrow actually) but for most of American the road is closed until June.

[Captain Hilts]

41. Yes. I know. that's why I said 'right now' I'm out of luck. nt

[Statistical]

44. Oops. Missed that. Most people think how it is today will be the way it is forever (n/t)

[Common Sense Party]

105. I'll be out of luck, too. Big mountains between me and the signal.

I don't watch TV much, though.

[NoGOPZone]

55. Not in my area

The CBS, NBC, ABC and Fox affiliates are all broadcasting digital at over 200KW. Only PBS is higher for analog. I'm waiting to see if the change to VHF improves reception, but not all stations are changing as you mentioned.

[truedelphi]

78. Except for your horse and roads analogy to work out properly

I thinkyou'd have to say that back in the day, the government took away your horse before you got a car. So if you wanted a car, you had to buy it, only to find out that for four months or more, there would not be any gas stations in your area.

[hlthe2b]

26. Good to hear... are you near high rise buildings?

My friends in mixed use neighborhoods in urban Denver are finding some issues with the high rises around them and they can not put up an outdoor antenna, as they are renting. Some channels come in amazingly clear, as you say, but they go out without warning when something interferes with the signal. Other previously watchable channels don't come in at all. Perhaps it because they live close to Denver's emergency communications center, which might be putting out some competing signals from time to time.

I'm also hearing considerable disgruntlement from friends living in areas distant from Denver..Since digital is all or nothing, they can no longer "tweak" out a reasonably watchable picture from a weaker signal. They get nothing on those same channels.

[GoesTo11]

27. I guess it's hit or miss.

I don't live near high-rise. I lucked out this time. Sounds like the opposite for some people.

What would make sense is to keep the new tech where it works best but have the old tech where the new tech doesn't work. Why would rural areas need all the extra cellphone bandwidth or whatever it is anyway?

[aquart]

29. What box did you get?

[GoesTo11]

32. Zenith

[Bjorn Against]

90. Yes, if you have a good signal then digital is a massive improvement in terms of picture quality.

I get a PBS HD station through my small set top antenna and the picture quality is so beautiful that it is hard to distinguish from Blu Ray, everyone who lives in an area that has a good signal is going to see a major improvement in the picture quality they receive from the digital signal.

[joshcryer]

101. I got one of my boxes for $5 (with the coupon!). :)

The other one was $15 but it's one of the 'better' ones (has a built in TV guide, the cheaper one just shows "what's currently on").

[truedelphi]

75. Additonally at least twice a night, the new Digital signals freeze up

And the characters sort of jerk through the scene. Don't know why it happens.

Improvement it is not.

[jberryhill]

79. "Not to mention what happens with power outages."

Ummm... Maybe I'm dense, but could you mention "what happens with power outages" under digital broadcast that doesn't happen with analog broadcast.

My analog TV doesn't work during power outages.

Am I doing something wrong?

[hlthe2b]

80. While it may be a matter of time, there are analog portables

but no digital portables available. As I said, it is probably only a matter of time, but to not have emergency portables even available...:shrug:

[jberryhill]

84. The converter boxes run off of DC....

...which is the point of having a wall transformer to plug them into.

[hlthe2b]

86. What does that have to do with having emergency access

via a DTV battery operated portable?

[jberryhill]

89. It's easier to run a DTV converter box from a battery than AC

Here, watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O46ZlUvtCbk

If you can't figure out how to connect a battery or battery pack to the plug, or if you can't figure out how many times to add 1.5 to reach the voltage of your unit, then you can get a battery powered one:

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/115179-Winegard_Introduces_Battery_Powerer_DTV_Converter_Box.php

Winegard Introduces Battery-Powerer DTV Converter Box
Battery pack would allow DTV-to-analog converters to work in power-outages
<...>
Winegard's converter box already ran on nine volts rather than the standard 12, he says, so the pack would not have to be "humongous." Six D batteries will do the trick, he says.

http://www.summitsource.com/product_info.php?ref=1&products_id=7675

Winegard RC-BP9V Backup 9V Battery Back Pack Power Supply for RCDT09A Digital to Analog TV Converter Box and RCDT09 HD to SD Off-Air Digital TV Signal Receiver DC Power Supply, Part # RCBP9V
$13.95

[hlthe2b]

91. I see... thanks..

:)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

92. There ARE digital portables, BUT

so far, they all run off battery packs that have to be recharged after two hours.

My little analog handheld TV runs off AA batteries. In a long power outage, you just replace the batteries. So far, there's nothing like that for digital, and my little battery TV, which has served me faithfully since 1991,will become an expensive paperweight. :grr:

[joshcryer]

100. The power requirements to decode will go down, it's just a matter of time, really.

[Touchdown]

82. 15 years warning is "rapid"?

Try discovering the subject matter.

[hlthe2b]

88. Try some reading comprehension...

I said we are rapidly doing away with FREE tv, not that the digital conversion was rapid...:eyes: Step away from the keg, friend....

[Touchdown]

93. Actually I thought you misspoke with that "No free TV" remark.

Silly me for giving you the benefit of the doubt. DTV is FREE TV. But then, you've been told this before, and it hasn't sunk in.

There seems to be nothing left for me to help you with. Oh' well.

[hlthe2b]

96. Again with the lack of reading comprehension.

Read my entire post slowly and thoroughly. There are many areas of the country where DTV signals will not allow for the same reception of channels as previously on analog. Degraded digital signals = no reception. Thus, there will be areas where cable or satellite and not free over the air reception will be the only way to ensure the same access as previously...

And your rudeness is beyond the pale. You needn't bother to reply... I will not be wasting further time.

[Touchdown]

97. The digital signals get boosted when the analog is turned off.

You won't know how strong your signal is going to be until mid-June. Your knowledge on the subject leaves a lot of room for education.

And... I'm only rude because your poisoning the well with misinformation.

And... You don't decide for me when I stop talking. I'll bother until well poisoners give up.

[joshcryer]

99. 11 analog channels, 26 digital, I'm sorry, I have to completely disagree.

The fact that we can see the weather 24/7 on one of the channels is a godsend here (where the weather in Colorado is crazy).

I'd have to pay for cable to get the same service.

[hlthe2b]

106. Your're lucky and I hope others will be likewise when the signals

get ramped up. Right now it is hit or miss... Digital signals are not viewable as analog ones were (albeit poorly) when they degrade with distance or with interference from other sources. Perhaps when the final implementation occurs more will be able to view stations they could previously (as well as new ones).

[Viking12]

6. Well for starters, you can thank John McCain for giving away the digital spectrum

rather than auctioning it off. Not only that but the 'give-away' was limited to the commercial operators that already monopolize the airwaves. The opportunity to expand access to public discourse was passed over in favor of the telecommunications industry.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

7. You're kidding me! Are there articles on that? nt

[Statistical]

38. Really ?!?! guess you missed the first auction which netted govt $19.9 Billion. (n/t)

[Viking12]

52. Only a small segment of the available frequencies were auctioned....

...this was "new" space created by the digital format. Those with existing allocations were given "squatters rights" to occupy airwaves at no additional cost denying the opportunity to collect billions in revenue.

[Statistical]

54. What benefit would there be to force a multi billion tax on existing broadcasters?

Take say WVEC our local ABC affiliate.

They occupy TV channel 13 @ 211.25 Video Carrier.

They have been for decades.

They are ALREADY being force to upgrade to digital.

You think they should pay for a new license to put the same content on the same frequency just because it is digital?

Why so smaller stations will fail and allow even MORE consolidation by companies like Clear Channel.

The TV broadcasters have no choice. Come June they will be forced to broadcast only in digital.
Some are keeping same freq. Others are moving however ultimately after the transistion they will have one VHF or UHF block broadcasting in digital for each one block of VHF or UHF they shutoff.

The system consolidated space and moved the channels closer together in order to auction the unused spectrum for NEW SERVICES.

It would make no sense to thrust a tax/auction for those already providing a service.
Many broadcasters didn't want to go to digital. It was done so part of the spectrum could be used for NEW SERVICES.

[Viking12]

68. Existing broadcasters are using public airwaves for, basically, nothing

while at the same time their use of those airwaves is protected by heavy handed govt and has been since 1934. If they want govt protection for anti-competitive practices, they should pay for it.

While not as large as Clear Channel, the owner of your local ABC affiliate, Belo, is in itself a growing media conglomerate that has little interest in serving the public.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

73. Interesting. Wonder if the whole story on this can be searched on google nt

[KharmaTrain]

8. And How Is This Costing Us "Lots"???

For a $20 converter box?

The lion's share of the costs on this transition has fallen on broadcasters...having to build a second digital channel along side the analog one. It was mandated by the government or they'd lose their license. The only stations that got any public funding were public television stations...and many of those had to find outside funding to cover the shortfalls. The money for the converter boxes are pocket change to the large sums invested by the many who were either required or are looking forward to the digital transition.

So...100 years ago, when public money was going to pave streets and roads to make them useable for cars, that was an unnecessary expense, too? Hell, horses work just fine. Television is using technology that is 70 years old...digital is catching up with other technologies...such as your computer. The term is called "progress".

Television isn't a utility...it's a luxuary. The "millions" who will be left in the dark (even though analog low power and translator channels will continue to operate) have had 10 years of notice this day was coming and several opportunities to express their concerns to the government. Those who "need" television will find it. It's not as though digital is a paid service...it's not only free, but offers more channels than the analog system. Again...the term is "progress"...either keep up or catch up.

Now think of the broadcasters who have already spent millions in new equipment...should they just throw their new equipment away? Or should they continue to maintain two stations?

Truth is if there's anyone making money from this transition its the equipment manufacturers...and I do fault many for waiting until the last year for making digital only available on their most expensive wide screen units. But today you can find a digital TV for $100 and the picture quality is far superior to any analog.

The digital delay is a joke...just like the Y2K scare. I'm told the day after the switch over the sun will rise. We've got a lot more important matters to deal with.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

11. BILLIONS have come out of our pockets to pay the manufacturer of those boxes that the poor....

the old, the sick, and all those that don't have money to pay for a digital TV.

All you have to do is turn on CNN, MSNBC or any of the stations, to find out that the money they had set apart to pay for those BOXES (something the broadcasters should have been doing, and not us!!!!!!!), is GONE! Of course they're now asking for more money. Now the Congress is going to have to give more money for those boxes AGAIN, and meantime the broadcasters are sitting on their fat @$$es laughing while our bankrupted country pays once again for the rich to make more money.

[KharmaTrain]

31. Billions?

The boxes were built with by the manufacturers. No government subsidy. All people got were a rebate certificate...the government THEN pays the $40 dollar difference between the price the consumer pays and the retail price of the box. So, if everyone in the country bought a box...300 million people at $40 a piece, then they'd get $12,000,000,000...but that's not the case. 90% of Americans are connected by cable or satellite and won't be affected by the change...or already have purchased ATSC tuners. It's more like 15 million people who COULD be affected. But then I didn't realize watching TV was a right.

The broadcasters have spent billions of their own dollars...surely not "sitting on their asses"...and many of them are going bankrupt as well. Advertising revenues have fallen and their huge debts are pushing them over the breaking point. Small companies will be the most hard-pressed as they don't have the political clout or resources the bigger guys do...but right now that means little as the entire broadcast industry is in a major depression.

BTW...CNN and MSNBC are cable channels...to watch them you have to pay money. Digital TV is free...the expense of the box and antenna are still less than what most pay for a year's worth of service.

I have a frail elderly mother-in-law who never wanted cable. We installed a converter box on her beloved 1970's vintage Zenith and she went from having 8 channels with lots of snow and ghosting to 25 channels with a crystal clear picture. She's adjusting quite nicely. Others will as well.

Cheers...

[Sarah Ibarruri]

34. The govt isn't paying it. Our taxes are paying for those boxes. The broadcasters should be nt

[KharmaTrain]

39. It's A Rebate...

The government is issuing the rebates...thus they are paying for it. And from my latest recollection, the government IS the people...and those rebates are coming from our taxes. So be it. I have no problem with my tax dollars going to help an elderly person get an upgraded teevee...far more so than giving it to a defense contractor or greedy Wall Street bank.

The broadcasters don't profit from this mess...many are taking a big financial hit. And you want them to pay you for what? Again...teevee is a luxuary, not a utility. Now if you want to change the law...that's a different issue.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

40. Yes, our taxes are paying for the manufacturers of those boxes nt

[KharmaTrain]

50. Have A Link For That?

One that shows a government payment to a company to make the units? Not the rebate, but for the manufacture.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

59. We were watching it on CNN and MSNBC on the TVs at the gym....

It's not a mystery or a secret. The money for the rebates on all those boxes came out of our taxes, and they ran out. The reason it was in the news, is that the manufacturers of those boxes want more taxpayer money.

[KharmaTrain]

60. That Doesn't Mean The Government Paid For The Manufacture

The entire converter box situation has been a mess. Manufacturers were slow on getting boxes to stores thus people who had gotten coupons didn't find any boxes...then the government ran out of coupons, yet you can walk into stores and find a ton of boxes. Never did the government pay to make the boxes or do anything than kick back $40 on the box AFTER it was sold. If there's a glut of these boxes, the manufacturer, not the government eats the costs.

Again...I'd like a link...second-hand from the corporate media doesn't have much credibility here.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

61. I'm looking at 3 things: 1) It's our taxes, 2) children are starving in America

3) Our taxes are going to garbage

[Statistical]

65. govt MADE $18 billion on this switch.

Vacated (soon to be) spectrum auctioned for: +$19.8 Billion.
Converter Coupon Program: -$1.34 Billion.

That's $18 BILLION GAIN for taxpayers.

$18 Billion extra dollars for helping the poor and starving.

If the govt isn't doing enough for the poor that is just bad priorities in Washington (write your Congressman).
This program (unlike virtually anything in Washington) has been a financial positive for taxpayers to the tune of $18,000,000,0000+.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

62. And by the way, I looked up your profile - LOVE your quote nt

[Captain Hilts]

12. The boxes cost $40 w/o a coupon. A LOT of people also need a special antenna which is another $40+.

Digital reception is an 'all' or 'nothing' situation. If you live in a hilly area, you might be on the short end of the reception stick. This is my problem. Even with the special antenna, the signal I get is too weak for the converter box. I live in the DC area.

Digital television set for $100. I sure haven't seen one.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

13. Absolutely true - Also, if the broadcasters wanted this, the broadcasters should've

paid for the manufacturers of boxes for them.

[RockaFowler]

17. The broadcasters didn't want this

It was mandated. And as someone above mentions, this is costing the broadcasters millions of dollars. We are running both a digital and analog signal. We have 2 different areas in Master Control that take care of both signals. Ask people who work for the TV stations - we know the big deal this is and what it's costing us.

[Captain Hilts]

18. There certainly are costs to broadcastes, and the delay will be very expensive to them. nt

[Sarah Ibarruri]

35. It was mandated by whom? Who stood to gain so much that they mandated it? nt

[Statistical]

43. The FCC

The digital spectrum is very crowded.

Everyone wants cellphones are other digital gadgets but there is very very little space for it.

To make matters worse when they make analog TV nobody had the presence of mind to realize someday the electromagnetic spectrum will be very very very crowded.

Analog TV uses about 7x as much frequency "real estate" than:
All Digital Satellite
All Digital Cellular
All Digital Wireless Networking
All Digital Wireless Backhaul

COMBINED.

The govt wants to build an all digital first responder network so that police, ambulance, firefighter, and national guard can work across state lines. Currently most communication networks are local only and not cross compatible.

There is NO ROOM for such a system.

Cellphone use will continue to grow. THERE IS NO ROOM FOR MORE CAPACITY.
More and more people are using internet wireless (not local wireless but long range WWAN). THERE IS NO ROOM FOR MORE CAPACITY.
Sat companies are looking for larger frequency range to deliver more content. THERE IS NO ROOM FOR MORE FREQUENCIES.

New technologies are in the pipeline such as WiMax, 4G networks.
Things like embedding traffic sensors in each car so that drivers can be alerted of alternate routes. This allows us to not pave over the entire planet to allow more transportation.

All those things take bandwidth. Many can't operate is open spectrum where they need to share with other competing devices.

The analog TV spectrum is HUGELY wasteful. Giant blocks of frequency for each channel. One (just one) TV channel has enough bandwidth to support 1600 cell phone users from a single tower with 8 directional antennas.

The whole world is transitioning to digital everything for the same reason.
Why do you think Digital phone lines replaced analog lines on the backhaul DECADES AGO?
Why do you think Digital Cellphone replaced analog cellphones nearly 7 years ago?

Space. There is a finite amount of usable electromagnetic spectrum and digital uses it far more efficiently than analog.

Get ready now.... next biggest space waster is analog radio. It likely will be another decade or so. Mark your calender so you can be "rant ready" in 2019 when Analog Radio shuts down.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

58. I am rant ready. 6,000,000 kids in extreme (not regular) poverty and our taxes are paying this crap

What a sad thing.

[Statistical]

63. If taxes were NOT used to pay for this you would complain that the poor are NOT being helped.

The govt is paying the smallest fraction for this.

The govt only expenditure was $1.34 billion for coupon program. plus couple million for a call center.

In return the govt sold licenses totally $19.8 billion.
TAXPAYERS MADE MONEY ON THIS. ROI is about 15,000%.

Content providers have been forced to upgrade cameras and digital recording equipment.
Broadcaster have been forced to upgrade broadcast equipment. They also have had to pay for 2 transmissions systems for last year and now have been delayed again.

CE companies have been forced to include ATSC tuners in all devices for a year now despite higher cost and no market for them.

Nobody has made a nickle on this yet EXCEPT the taxpayers.

If the govt did like you "wanted" and didn't spend anything you would complain nobody is helping the poor.

So I guess it is lose/lose with you right? Got all your bases covered.

Just be ready my prediction is we go through this all over again in about 10 years with AM/FM Radio.
Get your rants ready now. If got helps rant. If the govt doesn't help rant.

[dbackjon]

67. you really don't read any responses, do you?

You just cut and paste the same response, don't you?


Very annoying. Very unreasonable.

[havocmom]

69. Might one wonder if it wasn't the CELL PHONE industry that wanted the change?

More signal space for them, and yes, they have to buy it, at auction I believe, from us, via our government.

[KharmaTrain]

19. Try Tiger Direct...

Or even better...there are converter boxes that will go directly into your computer...no need for the monitor or audio...and those also cost around $100. Check out DIVCO.

I understand the reception problems...and thus why there hasn't been a shut off date for analog translators. Also many stations are operating at low power until the transition is made and the digital channels get the "right of way" on the airwaves as the analogs shut off. This will greatly improve signals in many area. In those that still have problems, I've been reading about a push to get low power digital translators up and running within the next year. These translators are a lot smaller, cheaper to operate and cover more territory than the analog ones, thus that may be the eventual remedy for your reception problems.

Again, there has been a lot of misinformation that has led to all the confusion and the delay is making it worse. Tomorrow, there will be analog stations shutting off...primarily in small markets who can't afford the expense of two stations and need to move their digital antennas to the top of their masts...moving this date to June puts a real crunch on the small number of crews that can do this work; especially in areas where the weather turns ugly in September.

Now if you want to talk about a real disaster...there's FM radio's equivelent...HD Radio.

Cheers...

[Captain Hilts]

21. Thanks for the info, but the LAST thing I want to do is watch TV on my computer!

The delay will certainly hurt broadcasters.

[KharmaTrain]

33. They're Hurting Already

The market collapse is hitting them on all sides. Advertising revenues have fallen, subscribers are not renewing and their own debt can no longer be re-scheduled and their stock prices have tanked. The future doesn't look very rosey and the delay is putting a big hurt on the small market stations...a reason why many are going ahead with the switch tomorrow.

I find myself watching more and more via the puter...Youtube, the DU Video forum, C & L...I get the good stuff without having to waste time listening to the bobbleheads on the teevee.

[RockaFowler]

49. You got that right Kharma

Our ad revenue is down and this digital transistion is not helping us. Extra money that we don't have

[msongs]

9. Leonard Cohen, "Tower of Song","...the rich have got their channels in the bedrooms of the poor". ->

Another awesome song from the master:

Well my friends are gone and my hair is grey
I ache in the places where I used to play
And Im crazy for love but Im not coming on
Im just paying my rent every day
Oh in the tower of song

I said to hank williams: how lonely does it get?
Hank williams hasnt answered yet
But I hear him coughing all night long
A hundred floors above me
In the tower of song

I was born like this, I had no choice
I was born with the gift of a golden voice
And twenty-seven angels from the great beyond
They tied me to this table right here
In the tower of song

So you can stick your little pins in that voodoo doll
Im very sorry, baby, doesnt look like me at all
Im standing by the window where the light is strong
Ah they dont let a woman kill you
Not in the tower of song

Now you can say that Ive grown bitter but of this you may be sure
The rich have got their channels in the bedrooms of the poor


And theres a mighty judgement coming, but I may be wrong
You see, you hear these funny voices
In the tower of song

I see you standing on the other side
I dont know how the river got so wide
I loved you baby, way back when
And all the bridges are burning that we might have crossed
But I feel so close to everything that we lost
Well never have to lose it again

Now I bid you farewell, I dont know when Ill be back
There moving us tomorrow to that tower down the track
But youll be hearing from me baby, long after Im gone
Ill be speaking to you sweetly
From a window in the tower of song
Yeah my friends are gone and my hair is grey
I ache in the places where I used to play
And Im crazy for love but Im not coming on
Im just paying my rent every day
Oh in the tower of song


Msongs

[Bill McBlueState]

10. Our failure to make sure everyone has a basic understanding

of science and technology is biting us in the ass.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

14. ?

[B Calm]

15. The next scam will be 3D TV

[Captain Hilts]

20. DTV isn't a scam. nt

[remoulade]

24. What was the first one, color tv?

:eyes:

[Occam Bandage]

30. Do you have any idea how many CORPORATE ELITISTS got rich off the color-TV SCAM?

Not to mention the TV scam in the first place. Or the electricity scam. Or the enclosed-shelter scam.

[remoulade]

36. The old pizza scam puts them all to shame.

:silly:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

94. The difference is that when color TV came in, your old B&W TV

would still receive the signals, only without the color.

I got my first color TV in 1986, years after it was invented, and before that, including all through college and grad school, I watched black and white.

[treestar]

45. You can still get a B&W TV if you want one

This change over leaves no option to stay with the old technology.

[remoulade]

48. Yup...and we can go back to slide rules and tin cans and a string.

If we want.

[treestar]

53. Exactly. If I prefer to use a slide rule, I can get one.

But apparently we can't watch any old TV. Though whether that is a bad thing is questionable.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

42. Oh they'll come up with another way to suck up our tax money

6,000,000 kids are living in EXTREME (not ordinary) poverty, and our tax money is going to this crap.

[Occam Bandage]

22. This is the same sort of mindset

that led to Londoners insisting that any attempt to replace gaslamps with electric lighting was a big-money scam designed to put hard-working people out of business.

[remoulade]

25. And that keeps the USA and Nigeria the last 2 countries to eschew the metric system.

:grr:

[Occam Bandage]

28. "Efficient use of a limited resource? CHANGE IS A TOOL OF THE DEVIL"

[mitchum]

47. Or Romans opposed to an upgrade in the quality of circuses...

since we are talking about freaking television

Yeah, I'm one of those snobs...

[crimsonblue]

57. well put

:D

[elocs]

46. Your post is simply your opinion, one you do not back up with a single link

that would indicate it is anything more than just an opinion. So to quote the popular DU question: "Link please?"

[Joanie Baloney]

51. So the ability to watch sappy dramas, formulaic sitcoms and biased news

with a hearty helping of mindless advertising is some kind of fundamental human right?

The reality is we are seeing the beginning of the end of broadcasting. The content isn't there, the advertising revenue is drying up, and people are more and more choosing cable, streaming and DVD over network broadcasting.

[crimsonblue]

56. The government is making money off this

The government sold the soon-to-be vacant broadcast frequencies. The digital transition is a necessity as we inch forward technologically.

[Statistical]

64. Exactly.

Govt sold the soon to be vacated spectrum for $19.8 Billion.
Despite paying $19.8 billion the spectrum will not be available when promised (Feb vs June).

The coupon program cost taxpayers $1.34 Billion & call center couple million.
The public service advertising has been subsidized by the broadcasters (ad council).
The HD capture equipment (cameras, decks, etc) upgrades paid for by content provided.
The broadcaster have been broadcasting using both methods (analog & digital) for over a year has been an extra cost to Broadcasters.
The CE companies have been required to include an ATSC tuner in most devices for 2 years now despite no market and added cost.

The only one who has made any money on this is the US GOVT!

[joshcryer]

102. Yep, and the stations are making money by saving power and having more channels.

Each station here has a total of at least 3 digital channels when before they had one analog. PBS has two sister channels now which is amazing.

[joshcryer]

dupe

sorry

[joshcryer]

103. dupe

[joshcryer]

104. tripe

dupe + 1 = tripe :P

[earth mom]

66. I'm sick of all the things the government can't "afford" to give the people like health care

but they can sure find the money to line the pockets of the banks, the media, and war mongering corporations.

I don't think these converter boxes were necessary either-not compared to what the people REALLY need.

:argh:

[Sarah Ibarruri]

72. It is aggravating. Every time you follow the money, the taxpayer has been scammed....

corporations have made off like bandits, there are some new toys to play with, and more children are living in poverty.

[truedelphi]

76. I hear ya, earth mom. n/t

[Igel]

70. Google is your friend.

"Gore Commission" will get you to the appropriate pages. "Grand Alliance" is from 1993, an FCC group to explore the idea. The Gore Commission looked at rights/responsibilities of HDTV providers.

Gore and others thought the idea of freeing up a lot of broadcast spectrum was great--because other wireless technologies can use the frequencies. They were going to give it away because the technological benefits would be worth it. (Think "Internet", also a government space until it industry moved in, and the CERN-produced WWW interface.) They backed down because, well, the market knows better.

So who's made money? The government, so far, because they sold it, even taking out the money spent on converter box subsidies. But given the bandwidth, lots of people might. You should see wifi technology become more widespread or capable.

The converter box people made money, to be sure. Not much, probably, but some. We just got a new DVD player with the converter built in when our old DVD player died; others just got new TVs. HDTV, of course, predates any government mandated switchover, and, to be honest, most of the public discussion of the merits of having it.

The reason for the mandate is fairly simple. A lot of people would move to the new technology because the picture's better and more can be done with it. But not everybody would move. That means it wouldn't get the buy-in necessary to make the conversion complete. The additional spectrum would be good to have--Gore and many others were almost certainly right about that--but without 100% conversion the spectrum wouldn't be available. So mandate the conversion and help people convert.

Of course, the Gore Commission's guidelines weren't followed--more educational programming, public interest stuff, etc., etc. Eh.

Thhe next big move will be digital radio. That's something I'm not looking forward to: If you have cable TV the HDTV conversion doesn't much affect you just yet (we don't have cable). But we have one tv. Radios ... in our cars, portable radios, in our CD player and in our alarm clocks. Conversion there will be a major hassle, and there won't be "converter boxes" for radio. Just new everything.

[KatyaR]

71. My guess is the TV manufacturers.

There's been a lot of misinformation about needing an updated TV set to get the digital signal when all you need is a converter box and antenna. I'm sure a lot of TVs have been sold because of that.

[sendero]

74. Its the future owner of the RF spectrum...

... that will be freed up by going digital. Even so, I'm all for it. You have to move forward, thankfully streets are not made for horses and buggys any more.

[Touchdown]

81. *GASP* It is truly sad the willful ignorance on the DTV conversion.

Enacted into law in 1993, and given a timeline to turn off analog signals in Jan 2006, delayed until Feb 2009, and then again in summer 2009.

15 years warning. 15 years to prepare for it. 15 years to save your money for a converter box or a new TV, and NOW you choose to complain how it's all a rush to take your money..:eyes:

Now the converter boxes are government subsidized, but your still getting taken. How did you ever get suckered in to buying a computer, much less a monthy internet access fee?

[GeorgeGist]

83. The usual suspects.

As they will off the stimulus package; unless a hero vetoes it, tomorrow.

[TheWraith]

85. It's NOT unnecessary. Please, people, crank down the tin foil!

Digital TV is vastly more efficient in how it uses the finite resources of the airwaves, leaving more room for things like wireless internet and capacity on cell phone networks. In addition, TV viewers will get better pictures and more channel options. Millions will NOT be left in the dark, certainly not for long. Operating both analog and digital networks are very expensive, and digital signals won't be running at full power until the analog ones are turned off.

[Dukkha]

87. the simplest solution is free broadcast TV cable to all

I pay a LOT for basic cable and broadband Internet. $100/month now. The big cable providers would hardly lose anything to switch on all the broadcast network channels to every household for free. It would make the transition a breeze and may provide an incentive for others to upgrade to basic or premium cable service.

[Jkid]

95. The only way to do that...

The only way that cab happen is that US government would have require that all cable companies provide antenna service for free. But that is not going to happen because cable companies want to upsell potential companies to those packages that cost at least $30 with a bunch of general entertainment channels you will not watch (which are mostly off-network repeats and reality tv).

[WillowTree]

107. The misinformation, misunderstanding and downright ignorance about this switch is breathtaking.

And it becomes ever more obvious that some people are so bent on believing that it's some kind of plot to "get the little guy" that they refuse to accept the facts when they're presented.

Sad, really. But if that's what gets you off, enjoy!

One brief fact:

There is no constitutional or God-given right to television. Deal with it.