RSSRules change approved, DTV delay may be debated Wednesday
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published February 3, 2009, 9:09 PM
10:30 am EST February 4, 2009: Given the House's current schedule, it appears likely that the House Resolution will pass, and debate on the delay, will begin at 11:30 am. Betanews will cover the debate live.
What a vote of the entire US House failed to accomplish a few days ago, the House Rules Committee did Tuesday evening: enabling a delay of the DTV transition date to be debated without spending time in markup.
A resolution presented by the House Rules Committee late Tuesday will enable the House to debate a measure passed by the Senate last week, which would effectively postpone the date US TV broadcasters must shut off their analog signals from February 17 to June 12.
House Resolution 108 was reported on the House floor at 7:20 pm Tuesday evening. According to the official record this evening, no vote on the resolution itself was recorded. If that account is accurate, then the House may vote on the resolution tomorrow -- in which case, a simple majority may enable its passage, rather than the two-thirds majority required to suspend the rules last Wednesday.
Assuming that passes, then conceivably as soon as tomorrow, the House may debate the measure. It'll be quick and lively without any opportunity for amendments, the Rules Committee agreed. Rep. Henry Waxman (D - Calif.) will lead the debate in favor of the bill, with Rep. Joe Barton (R - Texas) -- a predecessor as chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee -- will lead the debate against.
During its consideration today, the Rules Committee rejected two amendments to the bill itself: one from Rep. Barton which would have requisitioned another $250 million for the converter box coupon program; and curiously, an amendment which would have tightened an existing stipulation of the bill. As it stands now, broadcasters would be generally enabled to throw their switch any time between February 17 and June 12. The amendment, written and sponsored by Rep. Greg Walden (R - Ore.), would have added to that language an extra clause prohibiting the FCC from taking any action against stations that do throw the switch early.
If it wasn't for the delays because some people just don't care or we are more prepared than the government thinks, we would already be full digital here! This delay thing has gone way too far!
Score: 0
|Tell me, doesn't most of the people use cable or satellite? Yes, I believe they do, in that case they don't need the stupid box. Ergo, no need for another delay. I believe it was only delayed to try and trick people into buying new TVs or other equipment that they don't need!
Score: 2
|I don't understand this delay. We were told, like 12 years ago that this was going to happen in 9 years, then it was delayed 3 more years, and now we are delaying it 4 more months. If these people aren't ready by now, they won't be ready by June. This just shows the world how piss poor and stupid our government is.
Score: 2
|dodo dee doo dee doooo.
I've said it before and I'll prob. say it again as this seems to be Beta New's favorite topic this year so far....
If our gov't. would (have,) spend half the time and effort on the original plan that they're spending on getting this delayed, the DTV changeover would have been a huge success with no distractions. But in typical "upper managment," style they'd rather spend twice the effort after the fact to get a result half as effective because of political nonsense and power trips.
This is something that has been in the main stream press (newspapers, radio, internet, and TV) for 3 years.
Broadcast TV stations have been running scrolling banners during news and other prime time broadcasts for 6 months to a year now.
There are those that will always wait till the last minute and get "bit in the arse," by nothing but their own procrastination. Delaying this conversion will NOT help that.
For those that don't understand it...one ring to "Mable the operator," to "patch them through," to the TV station they are trying to watch will again explain to them what they haven't been able to comprehend for the past 3 years.
Score: 3
|If our gov't. would (have,) spend half the time and effort on the original plan that they're spending on getting this delayed, the DTV changeover would have been a huge success with no distractions. But in typical "upper managment," style they'd rather spend twice the effort after the fact to get a result half as effective because of political nonsense and power trips.
>
>
The original plan was a *SCAM* pure and simple and everybody knew it. It was designed to force people to buy overpriced electronics they didn't want or need.
Score: -1
|lol, that's the single most ignorant, conspiracy theory I've heard on this topic so far.
Can I have my 3 min back please?
Score: 0
|I would get angry that our reps are taking 1 minute of time to bother with such a meaningless issue in the face of depression, but why bother? one voice means nothing.
Score: 3
|Let's say they just do nothing and the screens go dark for tens of millions of poor or rural viewers who can't swing the $50-70 for a convertor box. Within minutes an army of lawyers would be descending upon Washington screaming about "disfranchisement", denial of news and information, and so on. The millions set aside for those coupons will head that off at the pass and would be far cheaper and simpler than the inevitable settlement. What the government should've done is provide $50 off any device with a digital tuner built it - TV, DVD player, set-top box, whatever. That would've not only solved the problem but created significantly more economic possibilities. But, as you say, one voice means nothing. In fact, millions of voices apparently mean nothing as evidenced by the bailouts and all the rest of it.
Score: -4
|&%&% (*&*&^&^ (&(*&*&** !!!!!
Score: -1
|Rural viewers with anything ATSC? That makes allot of sense. You idiots just keep ignoring what is actual and only read what you want to see.
Score: 1
|You sound very familiar, psycros, or should I say smell familiar?
Things are never as simple as people, like you, want them to be. The vast majority of people now live in either cities, or urban areas, and this changeover will not direct affect them. There is no so-called "disenfranchisement". They've been given plenty of time and notice for those affected.
http://sethf.com/essays/major/libstupid.php
Real freedom comes with a lot of responsibilities from all sides. It doesn't mean to do as one pleases. Only anarchists and libertopians believe that it does,
Score: 0
|Score: -2
|@ psycros: Yeah, sure. It's a great idea to pay $650 instead if $700 for a new TV with a built in digital tuner. Most people will simply buy a digital converter box for $10-$20. The only people who are unaware of the switch to DTV are the ones who never watch TV.
Stupid Betanews won't let me reply directly to someone else's comment for some reason.
Score: 0
|What the government should've done is provide $50 off any device with a digital tuner built it - TV, DVD player, set-top box, whatever. That would've not only solved the problem but created significantly more economic possibilities. But, as you say, one voice means nothing. In fact, millions of voices apparently mean nothing as evidenced by the bailouts and all the rest of it.
>
>
BS. What would of happened is what we're seeing at Circuit City. Basically the prices of everything would've jacked up by $50, giving an illusion of a savings of $50.
The goverment did the right thing here by putting limits on what could be bought with the coupons.
Score: 0
|$50-70 for a convertor box. Within minutes an army of lawyers would be descending upon Washington screaming about "disfranchisement", denial of news and information, and so on.
>
>
You're seeing this already. Instead of gving people details of the news during the news, stations are refering people to their freaking WWW sites for the details.
WELL DUH.
IF YOU *DON'T* HAVE INTERNET ACESS,HOW ARE YOU GOING TO GET THE DETAILS MORONS!!!
A lot of the DTV so-called "information" is set up like this.
Score: 0
|[q]kifox1961--IF YOU *DON'T* HAVE INTERNET ACESS,HOW ARE YOU GOING TO GET THE DETAILS[/q]
I'm not sure about your news station, but the ones I see it on give both a web address and a phone number for those without internet.
As for the delay, I'm against it. I don't see how someone could not afford $50 for a box. Come on, it's been at least 3 years notice. I live basically paycheck to paycheck, and even I can scrape up the money to get a converter box. The only reason I haven't is that I procrastinated (which is the excuse of most people who don't have one) and because I have cable and don't really need one.
Score: 2
|[q]kifox1961--IF YOU *DON'T* HAVE INTERNET ACESS,HOW ARE YOU GOING TO GET THE DETAILS[/q]
I'm not sure about your news station, but the ones I see it on give both a web address and a phone number for those without internet.
>
But were they *ACTUALLY TELLING* you *ANYTHING* about the transition, or were they just blowing people off in a cutesy fashion,like so many of the anti-comments here?
Score: 0
|