Jump to content

DTV Transition Officially delayed to June 12


HuskyCaucasian

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 27, 2009 -> 08:00 PM)
All you have to do is see the results of their actions to understand they completely blew this too.

 

Too bad there just isn't a better choice. The problem with this transition is the consumers who are being switched, those without digital sets, are the same people who are not willing or able to pay for cable and upgraded TVs. The ones that would appreciate the better picture, etc. are the ones already spending the money on cable, sat, or have bought HDTV. So the consumer demand is already being met, and their is almost no consumer demand for over the air digital.

 

Consumers did not force this, manufacturers and broadcasters did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 27, 2009 -> 07:27 PM)
So who exactly should be deciding how the airwaves are divided up? I can't imagine anything closer to a definition of interstate commerce than that.

Right. Public airwaves and if it was handled strictly by the market the conversion would be a willy-nilly patchwork. Or would just never happen at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (JorgeFabregas @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 08:19 AM)
Right. Public airwaves and if it was handled strictly by the market the conversion would be a willy-nilly patchwork. Or would just never happen at all.

 

Sounds like exactly how it is being handled by the government...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are so many different issues at work here than pro and con arguments could be made depending on what spectrum we are looking at. Overall, I think the airwaves have been divided up very well. We have so many technologies looking for a piece of the spectrum, it is a massive undertaking. Perhaps the messiness comes after the spectrum is allocated by technology and the individual frequencies within a range are administered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come June 17th, there will still be the majority of these people who haven't done a thing about it. Wasn't the original date in 2005 or 2006 for going digital? Obviously that wasn't going to happen, but it just shows how this whole project has been screwed up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 11:01 AM)
Come June 17th, there will still be the majority of these people who haven't done a thing about it. Wasn't the original date in 2005 or 2006 for going digital? Obviously that wasn't going to happen, but it just shows how this whole project has been screwed up.

 

The screw up is the public isn't buying into it. From what I read, broadcasters are ready, but it's the public that is screwing this up by not going out and spending the money to continue watching "free TV".

 

We are forcing consumers into something they do not want. Anyone that is still watching an analog TV through an antenna clearly is not all that concerned about picture quality, or any of the benefits of HDTV. Instead they are being told to spend money on something they don't want. Which is why the industry went to the government in the first place and asked for a mandatory conversion date. The public wasn't demanding it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Texsox @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 09:41 AM)
The screw up is the public isn't buying into it. From what I read, broadcasters are ready, but it's the public that is screwing this up by not going out and spending the money to continue watching "free TV".

 

We are forcing consumers into something they do not want. Anyone that is still watching an analog TV through an antenna clearly is not all that concerned about picture quality, or any of the benefits of HDTV. Instead they are being told to spend money on something they don't want. Which is why the industry went to the government in the first place and asked for a mandatory conversion date. The public wasn't demanding it.

The fact that the public wasn't demanding it doesn't mean it wasn't the right decision if it frees up a chunk of the spectrum for other uses. The public just expects that everything (Cell phones, radios, TV's, Wifi, etc.) is going to work, it doesn't care how that happens. In this case, that requires some change on the part of the public, and that's not going to happen unless it's done forcibly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 11:46 AM)
The fact that the public wasn't demanding it doesn't mean it wasn't the right decision if it frees up a chunk of the spectrum for other uses. The public just expects that everything (Cell phones, radios, TV's, Wifi, etc.) is going to work, it doesn't care how that happens. In this case, that requires some change on the part of the public, and that's not going to happen unless it's done forcibly.

 

I agree it is the right decision. But consider this. Who will be using the devices that will now use the spectrum? It probably will not be the "analog TV and rabbit ear" set. So we are taking from the poor and non tech citizens to give to the non-poor and tech class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Texsox @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 10:30 AM)
I agree it is the right decision. But consider this. Who will be using the devices that will now use the spectrum? It probably will not be the "analog TV and rabbit ear" set. So we are taking from the poor and non tech citizens to give to the non-poor and tech class.

Which is of course...why the government had that large program to help people buy the converters available...until it ran out of money in the late part of the previous administration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 11:46 AM)
The fact that the public wasn't demanding it doesn't mean it wasn't the right decision if it frees up a chunk of the spectrum for other uses. The public just expects that everything (Cell phones, radios, TV's, Wifi, etc.) is going to work, it doesn't care how that happens. In this case, that requires some change on the part of the public, and that's not going to happen unless it's done forcibly.

 

Which is exactly what I have a problem with. The ONLY reason this is happening is profit. People shouldn't be forced to change their behaviors for no other reason than profit. To me, this is the broadcasting equivilant of emminent domain based on blight. Someone else has come along and decided they can make a better use of your property, and it going to take it from you to do it. If people feel like they really have to have this, the private sector will figure out a way to get it done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 12:31 PM)
Which is of course...why the government had that large program to help people buy the converters available...until it ran out of money in the late part of the previous administration.

 

There is still a cost above and beyond the coupon price. Basically they want the "rabbit ear" set to spend money so someone else can use the frequency. I agree with Southsider, (a lot today it seems), the process was flawed from the start. The only way to assure it worked was to offer the converters free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Texsox @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 10:40 AM)
There is still a cost above and beyond the coupon price. Basically they want the "rabbit ear" set to spend money so someone else can use the frequency. I agree with Southsider, (a lot today it seems), the process was flawed from the start. The only way to assure it worked was to offer the converters free.

I guess the poor need better lobbyists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Digital TV transition delay bill fails to pass in House

 

In an absolutely shocking move, the United States House of Representatives has failed to pass the digital TV transition delay bill that was all but certain to fly through just days ago. The bill needed two-thirds of the votes of the House under "special rules adopted for the vote," and reportedly, the vote was just 258 to 168 in favor of changing the date. As it stands, an estimated 6.5 million Americans are not yet prepared for the switch -- which is now back on track for February 17th -- and the money well for government-issued vouchers has ran dry. Honestly, we're elated to hear the news. The February date has been blasted from the rooftops for years now, and changing it this late in the game would wreak all kinds of havoc in the industry, not to mention instill even more confusion. Soon-to-be-vacated airwaves, we're ready for you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to agree with SS2K5 here. I don't think the government should be mandating this sort of thing, the market could handle this on its own. Or it wouldn't, and, there it would be. This is another waste of money.

 

By the way, I am not saying the government shouldn't be involved in certain aspects of regulation of TV. Some of it is necessary. But dictating technology sets should not be part of that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 01:32 PM)
Which is exactly what I have a problem with. The ONLY reason this is happening is profit. People shouldn't be forced to change their behaviors for no other reason than profit. To me, this is the broadcasting equivilant of emminent domain based on blight. Someone else has come along and decided they can make a better use of your property, and it going to take it from you to do it. If people feel like they really have to have this, the private sector will figure out a way to get it done.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but basically anyone who's paying for cable or satellite already doesn't have to worry about conversion, and this applies to people who receive over-the-air (free) signals? So I might be missing something here, but I don't see how people can complain about eminent domain on free stuff, and I don't see how the private sector has or should have anything to do with something like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 29, 2009 -> 09:39 AM)
I tend to agree with SS2K5 here. I don't think the government should be mandating this sort of thing, the market could handle this on its own. Or it wouldn't, and, there it would be. This is another waste of money.

 

By the way, I am not saying the government shouldn't be involved in certain aspects of regulation of TV. Some of it is necessary. But dictating technology sets should not be part of that.

But public TV though? Isn't that where the government should be involved?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...