Congress Urged To Postpone Nation's Switch To Digital TV

[WhiteTara]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/07/AR2009010703916.html?

In a letter sent last night to President Bush, President-elect Barack Obama, House Commerce Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) and Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), the consumer advocacy group said Congress should push back the transition "until a plan is in place to minimize the number of consumers who will lose TV signals."

The request comes two days after the federal government said it has run out of money to provide coupons to help offset the cost of converter boxes. Analog television sets that rely on "rabbit ear" or rooftop antennas to receive broadcasts will need a converter box to get a picture after Feb. 17, when all full-powered television stations will stop airing analog signals and move to digital-only broadcasts.

Lawmakers are looking for ways to make sure consumers who need coupons get them in time. "But with the date looming, moving the date back certainly warrants further discussion and may be a wise choice," said Daniel Reilly, a spokesman for Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), chairman of the House subcommittee on telecommunications and the Internet.

As of Sunday, consumers requesting $40 vouchers to help purchase a converter box are being placed on a waiting list, and federal officials warn that TV watchers may not receive the coupons in time for the switch.

[tuvor]

1. How much does it cost a station to pump out an analogue signal?

And why must the analogue signal be eliminated?

[drm604]

2. The plan was to reallocate the frequencies currently being used for analog to other uses.

For Cellphones, WiFi, etc., and other things we haven't even thought of yet.

My beef is how poorly some of the digital signals come in. My mother has a TV in her kitchen that is not hooked up to cable (running the cable would be a real hassle). I gave her a set top digital converter recently. When I hooked it up the reception on a number of local Philly stations was terrible, the pictures consisted of scrambled pixels, and every station, even the ones with good pictures, had an annoying hum in the audio. This isn't acceptable.

[smalll]

3. Good. And it's not just that they've run out of money for converter boxes --

Regular (non-cable) channels 2 through 13 are on VHF. ALL digital channels are on UHF -- weaker signals. If you live more than 20 miles outside of a major broadcasting metropolis (especially if there are trees and/or hills nearby) free TV will become impossible after the switchover to digital.

Relatedly, a lot of free-TV rabbit-ears people were perfectly satisfied with the fact that some of their channels were "snowy" -- (plagued by static.) Guess what? With digital, snowy TV becomes a thing of the past: if your signal is only good enough to be snowy in analog, you will see NOTHING in digial -- if it's not perfect reception, it's "NO SIGNAL!"


I'm NOT a conspiracy theorist at all, but I have suspected for a while that this whole changeover to digital was a final push to FORCE all Americans to PAY for TV. The elite are fed up with us "deadbeats" who aren't willing to pay over $100 a month for cable. Digital is the way they planned to force us to pay.

[silverojo]

4. $100 for cable?

We get basic cable for only about $40/month. People paying $100 would be subscribing to a LOT of high-tier channels to warrant that kind of cost....

I don't think digital TV is so much a conspiracy, as the government wanting the analog frequencies far sooner than digital TV's technology is ready for public use. :mad:

[smalll]

7. After the first year's subscription, cable can rise to over $100 a month in many areas --

there are many suburbs less than an hour from NYC where cable service is an actual monopoly, or at best, a duopoly. As a result, the cable companies have people's balls in a vise after the first year and can squeeze $100 a month or more out of people quite easily.

[Lifetimedem]

8. Thats how it is here

The towns/city contract with one carrier, I have basic digital, broadband and phone and pay $140 a month

[Fumesucker]

5. I've been using a digital converter box for a while now..

I'm over 20 miles from all antennas and have a large ridge between me and the antennas, I never had good analog signals on any channels at all even when I had a big outdoor antenna and yet I get more digital stations than I did analog ones.

This is in spite of the fact that many channels will not be broadcasting full power until after the cutoff date.

I have a decent indoor antenna with a built in amplifier that I've used for about ten years now, not an outdoor unit.

After some research, this seems to be the best antenna around for DTV.

http://www.amazon.com/Winegard-SS-2000-Squareshooter-UHF-Only-Amplified/dp/B000I1AQ4Q/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1231407664&sr=8-4

Excellent performance in poor conditions ..., November 22, 2007
By Archimedes Tritium - See all my reviews
After a lifetime of living in various areas all having poor TV reception, I'm used to barely visible images, heavy ghosting, snow, and poor colors.

Flipping through cable channels at hotels never turned up anything sufficiently interesting to pay a subscription for. But, with the transition to digital coming, I picked up a digital tuner (EyeTV 250+) for my computer (as the cheapest entry point) and plugged-in to the apartment's antenna to see what was available.

Only one digital channel was received, but it was so clear, I researched antennas further and eventually got the Winegard SS2000.

Although only 10 miles from antennas broadcasting from the top of a mountain in Los Angeles, I'm about 150 feet below a line of sight blocked by foothill terrain that is topped by another 50 feet of trees. The apartment has a multi-element UHF/VHF antenna about 80 feet off the ground that provides only marginal results on VHF. In fact, antennaweb.org predicted reception of ZERO digital channels at my location.

So the SS2000 was to be an experiment only; expectations were low, considering the elaborate external VHF/UHF pro antenna system at 80 feet of elevation only got one digital station.

I wired up the SS2000, plugged it in and got 42 digital channels with it just propped up in a chair, 2 feet off the ground inside my apartment. The first station I looked at was broadcasting a football game in 1080i & Dolby; seeing individual blades of grass on the field with accurate colors and no artifacts was memorable!

Got a tripod for the antenna (USAT from DVBhardware) and placed it outdoors on my patio, upping the count to a total of 54 stations (28 are keepers).

So it works, and works very well. I also got the SS3000 "indoor" antenna for comparison, but find the SS2000 to be superior, whether used indoors or outdoors. This may be because the SS3000 is a bit ungainly and difficult to orient considering it's long "wingspan". The SS2000 square isn't a visual work of art for the indoors, but it's not bad either, and could well be hung inside on a wall. It is light-weight. Given the better performance, compactness, and indoor/outdoor flexibility of the SS2000, I don't know what purpose the SS3000 serves.

[smalll]

6. Interesting! As you explain, the solution looks like better in-home antennas.

At least I hope that will be the solution. This is going to become a big issue, when large chunks of the American population loses TV next month, in the middle of the worst economy in ages, and mostly affecting people who can least afford to start paying for TV.