DTV bill already causes doom and gloom
By Kevin C. Tofel 
posted Feb 2nd 2006 7:32PM
posted Feb 2nd 2006 7:32PM
The ink isn't even dry on the DTV
legislation and already the market researchers are at it. Today's prediction is chaos unless every last digital
converter subsidy detail is resolved and communicated to the public. Let's be serious for a second: just because we now
have a hard date for the analog cutoff, does that mean it's time to panic? Hello America: we've been working on the DTV
transition since 1992. We weren't math majors, but when we figure it
out....let's see....carry the two....hold the one.....uh....well, it's a been a long time coming, anyways!Here's the fact: as a country, we have a tad over three years to prepare people. Assuming we did nothing for the past fourteen years, it's still very feasible to have a relatively smooth transition with proper consumer education. Yes, there will be people that are negatively impacted by this and it could be even be out of their control due to finances or other reasons. Does anyone truly think that a majority of the country will be impacted? Will tens of millions of televisions suddenly show nothing but snow, which is technically more accurate than the "TVs going dark" scenario that some digital dufuses would have us believe. Instead of forecasting doom and gloom folks, why not put your time, money and effort into an exercise that will actually help the situation. Spread the word on DTV. Hell, start a blog on HDTV and educate folks for we all we care. Just don't try to make it better than ours, 'k?
Are there any real numbers that show the number of televisions in use in the USA and how many of those are connected to a cable system instead of an antenna?
I'd bet that there's not any useful number on that last item. I've got 2 TVs plus 2 LCD monitors that include TV Tuners. All four of those are connected to my cable. I think if the cable company was paying attention, they'd charge me an extra $3 per TV after the first one.
I would love to get some money back from the government to subsidize my buying a new HDTV tuner, but I'm more concerned with missing out on a benifit that other people may get. Are there any HDTV Tuners out there that can be got for around $100?
The government will subsidize a digital tuner, not an HD tuner. Not all DTV is HDTV. Yes, most content will probably be HD in 3 years, but there's no guarantee that everything will be HD. Besides, analog TVs can't display HD content without downscaling it.
Radio Shack sells an Accurian HD receiver for under $90, but they are only sold in stores. Good luck finding one. I'm trying to sell mine with an amplified UHF/VHF antenna. I was finally able to get digital cable with HD and DVR service last week.
There are lots of people with analog OTA setups, but few people rely on them for all their TV viewing. Most people have cable, but might have an OTA setup in a room or two.
If the cable companies had any intelligence, they would take this marketing opportunity to get the 50 people who don't have cable to sign up. Offer a low end DTV package with the digital set top box for $10 a month or so.
"Instead of forecasting doom and gloom folks, why not put your time, money and effort into an exercise that will actually help the situation. Spread the word on DTV. Hell, start a blog on HDTV and educate folks for we all we care."
Generally speaking, it isn't the folks who have internet access and would read a blog that will need educating about DTV. The best way to educate them is through TV commercials and announcements. (As soon as they start selling HDTVs on the Shopping Channel, things will take off!)
Why is it the government's responsibility to make sure everyone can watch TV? Are they responsible to provide the poor with televisions too? Watching TV isn't a fundamental right...how much could a DTV tuner cost (not HD)? Why can't people with an analog TV just save up and get a tuner on their own, just like they did to purchase their TV?
I think theres a few good reasons for that Ben. Not to mention making sure people have access to emergency alerts, this deals with how the radio spectrum is used, which belongs to everyone, so if you suddenly change up how it is used it's not really fair to shut certain people out just because they can't afford a new TV, they have just as much right to the airwaves usage as anyone else.
Richard, I agree with your sentiment, especially regarding emergency broadcasts. However, since the government didn't use the emergency broadcast system on September 11th, they will probably never use it. I wonder how many people could have gotten out of the twin towers if all the radios in both buildings indicated that a plan had struck the first tower.
That said, the goverment will subsidize the DTV-to-analog converters, so everyone should still be able to watch TV.
Well, cell phones come in great in emergency situations also. Should the government make sure anyone who can't afford a cell-phone has one?
Ben, Currently the government doesn't send out SMS notifications of emergencies but if they did, that would have to be a consideration.
However, if the govermnment resold the frequency my cellphone works on for profit (as they're doing with the analog TV bands) cutting me off, I think a rebate on my phone would be in order.
Hi Richard, I have to disagree. If a company sells you a defective product, then I think it's right that you get a refund or even a class-action lawsuit if they don't want to comply. However, to say they owe you for selling off the frequency spectrum I disagree with. Consider, for instance, Blu-Ray and HD-DVD. If I buy into Blu-Ray and then HD-DVD becomes the standard and all movies thereafter come out in HD-DVD format, does Sony owe me since now I can't watch new movies?
From what I understand, they are going to auction off that frequency spectrum cause they can get tons of money that way. Doesn't it then belong to whoever buys it, not the consumer?
I don't own the frequencies my cell phone uses...I pay a monthly fee for a device that can communicate on those frequencies. If they changed frequencies, then that's my loss.
The biggest problem I see here (which really has nothing to do with HD) is this idea Americans have today that the government is responsible to take care of poor people. Provide housing, food, healthcare, and apparently DTV tuners. That's a nice notion, but where does the money come from? From the taxpayers.
This has nothing to do with Blu-ray or the governments responsibility to poor people. This has to do with who the radio spectrum belongs to, and that is everyone. If you're going to sell off the radio spectrum that i am a part owner in and make it unusable to me, thats a very different situation than a disc format becoming obsolete.
If you do not believe that radio spectrum is a public resource, just like water and air etc., then we won't see eye to eye on this. The frequency spectrum STILL belongs to the people, but it's being *licensed off, thats why the FCC exists.
Well, the only caveat is that for obvious reasons there has to be some control over it. I mean, you couldn't have tv on the same spectrum as airplane communications. But let me put it this way. Before any of this was an issue and they were broacasting for analog TVs, people had to buy their own TVs. It wasn't like when they started having TV broadcasts that the gov't said "we'll buy TVs for everyone". Why then, since it's changing, can people not buy either the DTV tuners or digital TVs, just like they bought analog TVs perhaps years ago? If the answer is "they can't afford them", then why is it government's responsibility to buy it for them?
I think you make a good point about the spectrum. It is a public resouce, it's simply being controlled by the gov't.