Login:
Password:
Lost Password?
Print this article  |  E-mail this article  |  Comment on this article

New legislation could postpone February DTV transition

By Jacqueline Emigh, BetaNews

October 15, 2008, 4:55 PM

Legislation now proposed in the US Congress would effectively postpone the February 17, 2009 date for the switchover to all-digital TV. Today, the NAB came out in support of that measure, with Nielsen data to back it up.

More than 21.5 million US households -- or one in five -- are still either completely or partially unprepared for the upcoming transition to all-digital TV on February 17 of next year, the Nielsen Company said on Wednesday. That same day, the National Association of Broadcasters endorsed proposed legislation in the US Congress that would enable an extension of the quickly encroaching deadline, now only four months away.

The NAB's TV Board on Wednesday issued a proclamation giving unanimous approval to proposed legislation first introduced by Rep. Lois Capps (D - Calif.) and Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D - N.Y.). The measure would allow broadcasters to voluntarily push back the deadline "only to provide additional time for consumers to be educated about the DTV Transition and receive emergency information."

Also on Wednesday, the Nielsen Company released survey findings showing that if the changeover happened today, a total of 9 million US homes would be totally unable to get TV signals, making them completely unready. Another 12.6 homes have at least one TV that would stop working, meaning that they're "partially unready," in Nielsen's words.

Nielsen also found that nearly 25% of the unready TVs are being used with DVD players, VCRs, or video game systems.

Still, lots of progress seems to have emerged over the past 10 months. In a survey last January, Consumer Reports discovered that 74% of respondents who thought they were ready for the change actually had "serious misconceptions of its impact." Moreover, 28% of those with one or more TVs that will be impacted weren't even aware of the digital TV transition at all.

Meanwhile, the FCC has launched awareness campaigns, including a multilingual informational Web site also used for distributing free digital TV converter boxes.

HDTVs and other digital TVs, of course, are inherently ready for the transition. Analog TVs, though, need to be connected to either a converter box or cable, satellite, or some other alternate delivery system.

The Nielsen findings released today also showed that, by and large, older and better educated people are more prepared for the change than younger and lower-income individuals.

Add a Comment (33 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By dodah

edited Nov 19, 2008 - 6:08 PM

I hope sombody can answer this. Why is it that the gov't is forcing this change? I don't want all the reasons why digital is better technically. I understand that. What I want to know is what political reasons are driving this. I long ago stopped believing that gov't forces polices on us because "it's good for us". What is really going on?

Score: 0

By nathan824s

edited Oct 17, 2008 - 5:49 AM

the federal laws to which our current deadline are based uppon have been around since 1994, of course because of peoples stupidity and ignorance the government kept pushing back that deadline. i cant imagine how much further they can or are willing to go. i also agree with everyone that the signel sucks. i have a special "digital" 50db gain antenna and most of the time i get stuttering or nothing at all and i live in the 75th telivision market so there should be no reason that the broadcasters here couldnt broadcast now at close to 100% power. they are just being greedy.

Score: 0

By overlandpark4me

posted Oct 16, 2008 - 7:05 PM

Something else I noticed is that when I asked some of my friends about the changeover, most thought they would have to get the converter box, even though they had cable and Sat programming. I think it's apparent what happens when you rush out a product to the retail channel when it's not ready. Oops, time to play some Xbox 360...............

Score: 0

By g3028

posted Oct 16, 2008 - 3:28 PM

My aunt was excited about the digital transition. She got her converter box, plugged in the antenna and switched on the TV. She got constant distorted, blocky video and stuttering audio on the "good" channels. After 20 minutes of fiddling with the antenna she unplugged the converter box and switched back to analog. All her neighbors who have tried digital say they get similar results.

I think the NAB should be worried about this because there is an alternative... and it's commercial free.

Score: 0

By Kei-chan

posted Oct 16, 2008 - 10:16 PM

Actually, something else to keep in mind is that a number of the stations aren't transmitting DTV signals at full power, yet (probably primarily due to the fact that they're still also running the analog transmitters/broadcasting an analog signal). So, a number of these stations aren't going to be broadcasting full-power signals until at least the changeover - which means I'll just have to live with the occasional blockiness and drop-outs.

Sites like antennaweb.org can help you determine the signal strengths in your area (at least, if you're in the US... I can't remember if it covers any other areas), and perhaps explain a few other things.

Score: 0

By shelb

edited Oct 16, 2008 - 8:21 PM

What is the alternative you refer to? Bittorrent? Youtube? Hulu? I doubt that my aunt is going to be using any of those. And if her ISP is one of the ones with a 5 gig bandwidth cap, she would only be able to watch about 10 hours of TV a month streamed online.

Score: 0

By Owilliams

edited Oct 16, 2008 - 6:18 PM

Most homes with analog TV antennas are comprised of a large VHF mast and a small UHF 'grate' style antenna. This may be have a dB booster in-line.
Virtually ALL digital broadcast is UHF.
Disable the VHF mast, try unplugging the booster and consider getting a better UHF antenna to replace the old VHF/UHF combo, they often don't work well at all with digital.
Once you get it right, you will be pleased.

Score: 0

By eunichman

posted Oct 16, 2008 - 3:27 PM

Ok, you HAVE currently, 2 choices..
[1] pay a cable or satellite company to receive a bunch of channels
[2] dont pay for reception, get a few local channels.

Now.. if people are still choosing option 2, then IMO it can be for only one of two reasons... the first being that they don't want to pay for a crapload of bs that they don't want to see; or secondly, they choose to watch only a little tv, thus an expendature for a monthly service would be wasted money.

I see this as nothing more than another way broadcasters are trying to rip off the consumer. To make this transition the broadcasters will have to spend millions, maybe billions of dollars in equipment upgrades that are NOT needed. the current system works fine... if it aint broke, dont try to fix it.

I remember back in the day when you PAID for tv reception (cable tv) that ensured you could watch television without ANY commercials.. I remember back when MTv was commercial free, bs show free and just played music videos...

One of the original reasons for choosing cable tv no longer applies, that being fed up with commercial interruptions. so tell me, where has the industry made progress... we can not pay, watch a few stations with commerical interruption, or we can pay for the same watch a few stations with commerical interruptions... no thank you. No converter box for me and shove your forcing ME to pay for YOUR television station's broadcast... that is what your commercial endorsements are for. greedy bas****s

Score: 0

By Owilliams

posted Oct 16, 2008 - 6:09 PM

"No converter box for me and shove your forcing ME to pay for YOUR television station's broadcast... that is what your commercial endorsements are for. greedy bas****s" --eunichman

eunichman, you seem to have a misconception about the difference between broadcast and other television sources.
Broadcast is totally free to the consumer, being paid for my advertising revenue.
It is going to remain so.
The change from analog to digital broadcasting is nothing but a change in HOW that signal is being sent over the airwaves. No charge will be made to you, although you will need a different 'tuner' to be able to utilize the signal... so you either need a new TV with the digital tuner built-in or you will need a small, inexpensive, converter box to make your old television compatible with the digital signal.
Satellite television is already digital and cable is halfway there... broadcast is merely catching up.

Smile. =)

Score: 0

By swattz101

posted Oct 16, 2008 - 11:57 AM

So tell me again why I can't watch color tv on my black & white tv set?

Score: 0

By Intrusive_Rogue

edited Oct 16, 2008 - 11:48 AM

Lord forbid that someone have to not watch TV and do some physical activity for a couple days while they get their act together installing a converter or TV they've been warned they'll need for the the past TWO YEARS.

Come on everyone...lets Coddle the ignorant!

Score: 0

By NLight95

posted Oct 16, 2008 - 3:12 AM

Like an increasing number of Americans, I get my news from the Internet. I watched the 3rd presidential streamed live from C-Span. I haven't watched TV in years and I simply don't miss it. I know of several others who have done the same. I've always said that if it comes between my Internet connection and TV, the former will take priority, and it has.

Score: 0

By morriscox

posted Oct 16, 2008 - 1:20 AM

Let's say the extension is granted. Knowing human nature, it's likely that people will procrastinate thinking that now they have extra time, they don't have to worry about things for a while. The new deadline comes up again and the same claim is made.

I pretty much only watch the Cartoon Network (Total Drama Island is hilarious) and I've seen the transition ads there. I wonder if the people who don't know about the transition really watch that much TV.

Score: 0

By ghammer

edited Oct 15, 2008 - 11:14 PM

'Voluntary' pushback, left to each broadcaster to decide.

Up yours, this has been there for years and should not be changed.

You have multiple TVs and not enough money to get converters? Too bad, watch the two you get vouchers for. Get your brother to turn a couple of extra tricks until you get the others hooked up.

Read, walk, meditate. Lack of TV is not a life threatening situation.

Score: 0

By shelb

posted Oct 15, 2008 - 10:52 PM

The digital transition is a great stimulus for the economy, in this dire time it must not be delayed. When TV stops working people will buy converter boxes, new antennas, new TVs with digital tuners. Some who can't get anything to work will buy cable or satellite. All of this will pump millions of needed dollars into consumer spending, improving the economy.

Score: 0

By Straspey

posted Oct 15, 2008 - 11:13 PM

In the current state of this crashing economy, as people's budgets begin to become stretched to the breaking point in terms of their just being able to cover monthly expenses such as food, rent (mortgage), medical expenses, car payments, gas, etc., they will be faced with having to give up certain discretionary expenses, and that hefty $150-a-month cable TV bill will be one of the first things to go.

I realize this is a forum for tech lovers, but here's a news flash: Television is not a necessity and many people can get along without it just fine.

Score: 0

By billweh

posted Oct 16, 2008 - 8:38 AM

Absolutely! This is just another great government screw up.

Why do we even need to move to digital broadcasting? All these people with standard TVs and the converter boxes are not going to see much if any improvement, so why even bother?

The folks who have the higher end TVs are already on Satellite or HD Cable- so who really benefits here?

I think the big concern is that the TV folk have realized that a large portion of their audience (not to mention the advertisers) are going to disappear off their radar and that has them quaking.

It would probably be one of the greatest things to happen to this country if the majority of people stopped watching TV and started spending time with their families.

I am ashamed to admit that I have make myself turn the stupid-box off and spend time with my wife and children. They are what's most important - not who is the next jerk to get kicked off the island.

You know - if I put the money I spend each month on cable into the bank or invested it in my family.... I have to make a call.

Score: 0

By Owilliams

edited Oct 16, 2008 - 10:06 AM

The improvement going from analog broadcast to digital broadcast television is considerable.
If you believe otherwise, you have not experienced it.
The first thing that happens is the all the stations that were never watched because they were at the fringe of viewing range and poor reception made them not worth watching suddenly come in crystal clear... then they all broadcast 2-3 channels instead of 1.
This allows more content variety to be offered.
I grew up in an area where about 5 stations came in well enough to be worth watching, 8 if an antenna rotor and booster was used. Now, I suddenly have about 30 stations that I can watch with crystal clarity at my home.
This may actually cause a bit of a renaissance in local content given a little time, something I would happily embrace.
I am old enough to remember when broadcasters actually produced their own content, instead of just having local news and then rebroadcasting the national network feeds.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

posted Oct 16, 2008 - 1:46 PM

"The improvement going from analog broadcast to digital broadcast television is considerable."

Nonsense.

First, what drove the switch had nothing to do with TV quality but the reallocation and selling of spectrum.

Two, instead of a weak analog signal which is watchable, in digital you fail to get any signal and or it pixelates as it fluctuates above and near the receiver threshold.

The only advantage of digital is that you can fit several carriers in the space required for one analog carrier, effectively increasing the number of channels for a given section of spectrum.

Score: 0

By Owilliams

edited Oct 16, 2008 - 2:23 PM

foxfyre,
Beg to differ about the improvement in my viewing experience... but it is what it is.
The reasons behind the switch has nothing to do with my statement.
Have you sat at my house and compared BEFORE and AFTER?
My statement wasn't an argument... it was a statement based on what is in front of me.
And if you need anecdotal from others in the know, simply take a little jaunt over to someplace like AVForums and do a little reading about the 'improvement' going from analog to digital.

Score: 0

By Kei-chan

posted Oct 16, 2008 - 10:19 PM

Sure, but you have to keep in mind most of the viewing public, with their 13" TVs, isn't necessarily going to see much of a difference. :D

Score: 0

By shelb

posted Oct 16, 2008 - 12:05 PM

The improvement depends on how far in the fringe you are. At my parents house, fringe of a large city, the switch to digital has improved reception and number of channels (although some desired channels don't come in yet, hopefully they will once analog is shut off and the digital channel moves back to its old frequence). Where I live, deep fringe, with my current large antenna I get only one station in digital. On analog I get 6, although several of those are fuzzy. Once the digital stations switch to their old analog frequency, I hope that more of them come in. But I suspect I will have to put up a mast and buy an even bigger antenna.

Score: 0

By Owilliams

posted Oct 16, 2008 - 2:18 PM

Get a deep fringe UHF antenna and you will be very happy with the results.
The VHF/UHF combos that most people currently have are not really best for digital, since virtually all digital television broadcast is done in the UHF band.
The only oddball I see in my reception area is WBBM 2 in Chicago... they still broadcast on VHF.
I haven't checked to see if they are going to change that at some point.
All the other high power Chicago VHF stations are moved to UHF... WMAQ-5, WLS-7, WGN-9, and WTTW-11.

Score: 0

By Owilliams

posted Oct 15, 2008 - 8:12 PM

You can bet your sweet backside that when all those living in supposed ignorance wake up on the morning of the 19th or 20th and all they get on their television is signal snow or a blue screen they will check around and figure out what is going on REAL QUICK.
Then they will get off their duffs and head up to the local stores to get a box.
It's not the end of the world... these procrastinators and technical refuse-nics with figure it out and life will go on.

Score: 0

By eunichman

posted Oct 16, 2008 - 3:33 PM

asctually I don't see that happening. I see that scenario ending in more people watching no tv, vcr or dvd movies. Some people - myself includes will not be lending support to this greed from the broadcasters

Score: 0

By myke25

edited Oct 22, 2008 - 1:45 PM

This isn't about greed from the broadcasters. The digital transition is being forced upon us by the federal gov't. I work for a PBS station. We don't have a lot of money to throw around, so when the Federal gov't says we have spend millions of dollars to go all digital, it's a big deal. The $40 it'll cost you to receive the digital signal on your analog TV is a small investment compared to the millions it'll cost us to transmit it. Greed doesn't really enter into it at all.

Score: 0

By Straspey

edited Oct 15, 2008 - 10:00 PM

Actually, many of those procrastinators and technical refuse-nics will wake up on the morning of February 19th or 20th and realize that life will go on just fine for them without having their weekly dose of such high-quality programming as "American Idol", "CSI", "Tru-TV" or "Dog The Bounty Hunter", and will go out into the sunlight and find other things to do besides spending hundreds of their hard-earned dollars just for the privilege of being able to watch garbage content in digital format on a flat-screen television set.

The NAB is very aware of this and will have to answer to the advertisers who will suddenly find themselves paying the same rate, only now their audience will be reduced by 25%.

We have a small, old 13-inch TV in our kitchen which is not hooked up to cable and has a rabbit-ear antenna. We use it to watch the news in the morning while having breakfast and getting ready for work. Do you really think (especially in this economy) I'm going to pay for another cable hook-up for that set when it goes dark in February ?

No. I'm going to just give up watching televised network news at that hour and all their commercials which they target towards a very crucial audience.

This makes the NAB very nervous and ultimately it will be bad for (their) business...which is why they are now having second thoughts.

Score: 0

By Skyfrog

edited Oct 15, 2008 - 10:19 PM

will wake up on the morning of February 19th or 20th and realize that life will go on just fine for them...and will go out into the sunlight and find other things to do...

What kind of fantasy world is it where people find their TV isn't working and just decide to go outside? Sounds nice, but it doesn't exist. Here in reality one of two things will happen. They'll go out and buy what they need to get their idiot box working again, or they will go into a psychotic rage and start making angry phone calls.

Score: 0

By Straspey

posted Oct 15, 2008 - 11:24 PM

Not everybody needs to watch TV. Not everybody cares about who gets eliminated on this week's installment of "America Can Dance" or whatever that dumb show is called.

Just watch as the prices for flat-screen TV's plummet during the holiday shopping season as they sit there on the shelves of nervous retailers because nobody's buying them due to tough economic times.

When the analog signal expires in February, many people will not have the financial resources to just run out and buy a flat-screen TV for $800 and then pay for a cable subscription. Times are tough and people will have less discretionary income to spend and will have to make critical decisions about how to spend and plan their budget.

Television will be low on the priority list.

Score: 0

By Owilliams

edited Oct 16, 2008 - 10:48 AM

They will complain loudly and buy a $30-$50 box.
Virtually NOBODY is going to just give up watching TV.
Sorry, it's an embedded part of modern culture.

http://www.tvhistory.tv/...ote-Cable_Ownership.JPG

Score: 0

By WeezulDK

posted Oct 15, 2008 - 7:54 PM

Too bad for the NAB. They're whining because they're refusing to let go of the past and move forward with a federally mandated switchover. They don't want to spend the money for it, they're worried about their precious commercial advertising money as well as the fact that the FCC banned the broadcast flags, and didn't cave to their DRM demands.

The fact of the matter is, I can't turn a TV on and watch a single evening where they don't run MULTIPLE ads regarding the switchover and what you need to do to prepare yourself for it, so if someone isn't ready for it, it's their tough luck.

It's about time the FCC had the balls to stand up and tell the broadcasters to either move forward with the transition or lose their right to broadcast. PERIOD.

Score: 0

By malves

posted Oct 16, 2008 - 12:38 PM

There must be either a lot of alcohol or drugs in use, or total brain death, for anyone not to see those ads and be totally unaware it is going on.... I think facts are being stretched or manipulated here so the NAB can yet again to try and delay the inevitable. I trust Nielsen as much as I trust politicians. Look at the TV ratings they post.

Score: 0

By DatabaseBen

posted Oct 15, 2008 - 5:41 PM

well, perhaps the stores need to stock up on digital converters for the madd rush that will occur on February 17th.

Score: 0

Nov 21 - 6:51 PM ET Coalition urges better laws for e-mail and cell phone privacy

Nov 21 - 6:42 PM ET How is Internet advertising faring in this bad economy?

Nov 21 - 6:15 PM ET From out of the Amazon Cloud, an AWS winner emerges

Nov 21 - 5:20 PM ET Mufin music finder enters public beta, adds widgets

Nov 21 - 5:01 PM ET Google launches its SearchWiki semantics plug-in

Nov 21 - 4:57 PM ET Asus previews a slimmer, less costly Eee PC

Nov 21 - 4:32 PM ET New Adobe Media Player ushers in AIR 1.5

Nov 21 - 2:11 PM ET AT&T to add Pantech's low-cost C630 phone to 3G lineup

Nov 21 - 1:11 PM ET iPhone gets firmware 2.2 update

Nov 21 - 11:51 AM ET The Dell surprise: Higher earnings on lower revenue