U.S. TV's Digital Deadline: Obama Era's First Consumer Crisis?

No, no, no!  Come on now, you have GOT to be kidding me.  This transition has already been delayed at least once.  There is absolutely no reason to do it again.  If sales of the converter boxes at my local Walmart and Target are any indication, people will be ready.  These stores can't keep them on the shelves.

And Mark B, which company is "forcing" subscribers to get boxes?  This is the first I have heard of that.  I know Time Warner Cable -- not my favorite company, mind you -- has intro'd a low-cost package ($14.99/mo. + tax/fees) with all of the local channels and public-access channels in our area.  No box necessary.  And if you're getting charged $100 per box a month, you're getting shafted.  Sorry to be so blunt, but that's just the truth.

I didn't mention it in the story, but over the air DTV is becoming the preferred way to receive high-def broadcast network programming... because many cable companies are compressing broadcast stations to jam more channels into their pipe.  Compression affects picture quality.  With OTA broadcast DTV, you're getting the full bandwidth/bit rate that's broadcast from the originating network affiliate.

It won't be long before some Hollywood studio realizes this, and launches an ad-supported broadcast DTV network using DTV subchannels in major and minor markets nationwide.

JN: The story discusses how about HALF of all OTA-dependent households are NOT ready, and how the elderly, poor, Hispanics are disproportionately affected.  There's a "let them eat cake" attitude that's very anti-democratic.  Broadcast TV is vital to delivering news, information, entertainment and a sense of "belonging" in American society.  It's plain wrong to disenfranchise millions when the public is clearly not ready.  

And there will be a great financial cost to broadcasters in terms of lost audience, as I discussed. 

DTV is great.  It makes broadcast TV a superior medium in terms of picture quality and sound fidelity.  But the industry and gov't need another couple of years for the equipment to penetrate the market.  Why not coordinate with Canada and target the analog cut-off date for Aug. 31, 2011?

I live in an area of Chicago where I get 16 analog stations, many of them come in so clear they are comprable to cable.

With DTV converter I get THREE stations, two of which are pixilated.

With my new DTV television the tuner doesn't bring in any station. And I am only five miles from Sears Tower. Clearly DTV does not replicate analog TV.

And why are they getting rid of analog. So cell phone users can have more phones. Cell phones are a luxury.

I guess the slogan is no TV for poor people, cell phones for rich people.

Pushing back the transition date will only cause everybody involved to put the Digital Transition on the "back burner" again. So many people that I talk to are already saying they'll "do nothing until February", because they don't see any reason yet. They'll just wait another few days, weeks, months, or years...depending on how long the deadline is moved back.

Delaying the transition will cost more money and accomplish nothing.  The press has been alerting the public about this for more than a year now.  Another delay would simply cause more confusion.

I have already predicted that the cutoff date will come and go with a few glitches, but no public outcry.  Let's see who's right on this one.  (Too bad I won't profit by a good call.)

If the new administration wants to hedge its bets, let them provide more funds for additional coupons after the transition date.

And Meredith Baker did an admirable job running the coupon program.  The President-elect should consider keeping her on.

Can someone please explain to me why we need to go digital at all. Maybe I am not tech savvy but I really can't see why or who made this a LAW that stations can't keep broadcasting in analog. How does this benefit the consumer? I guess I'm too old-fashioned (old) to "get" this. I've seen the commercial that tells me "digital is SO good that as of Feb. 18, 2009 all stations will only broadcast in digital. It's the law." It's so good, it's now the law??  I am not alone in thinking this is strange. Frankly, all I see is more money spent to buy a new TV, more money to buy cable, or more money to buy a box that does not get as many channels as before. I remember when TV was "free" and stations loved us to watch because commercials made their revenue. Maybe the next "LAW"  will restrict our radio reception unless we cough up some money for that. New does not always mean better. And yes, I have an older tube tv that has a picture better than the new flat tv's I've seen in the stores. I'll keep it going as long as my repairman can get parts! Tell me again how this benefits the consumer, the American people. Thank you.

It is not only viewers in fringe areas who are having trouble receiving the quirky and unreliable digital signals.  People living in apartments whose windows face away from transmitters are likely to have great difficulty receiving DTV signals using indoor antennas.  I live only three miles from the transmitters in Washington, DC, but I have had to struggle and spend money with trial and error approaches to receive acceptable DTV signals in my home office, which faces away from the transmitters.  I have tried five different antennas and many different locations and configurations.  The signals arriving at my windows are bounced and reflected unpredictably.  The picture and sound will be fine, and then all of a sudden pixillate and drop out for unknown reasons.  I finally bought an indoor HDTV antenna for $75 and put it up near the ceiling. Now, when I change channels, I have to get up on a stool and reposition the antenna, even though the transmitters are all in the same place.  I don't mind technical challenges--but this is ridiculous.  How many people, rich or poor, are prepared to deal with this, just to receive traditionally free over the air television broadcasts?  The FCC and its president, Kevin Martin, have created a near term fiasco which is about to hit the American people in the middle of winter.  Why did they pick February, just when it will be most difficult for people to think about climbing up on their roofs to install roof top antennas?  My hope is that reason will prevail under the Obama administration, and that the analog signals will be allowed to continue until such time as digital signals are improved, with repeaters or whatever else is required.

According to some of the many articles I have read, the power of many digital transmissions is lower now than it will be after the switch-over is complete. Also, the non-digital signals won't be in the mix as it is now, so the digital signal should improve in those cases.

i live in a fringe area 70 miles from st.louis. although i  have a 40 ft. tower with 3 long range antennas and a 20 db amp. i can only pick up some digital stations on rare occasions. but i can get 16-21 analog stations. i try everyday to get a digital station. most of the time, it is to no avail. i called my congressman to ask for him to get an allowance for at least 1 analog station to broadcast so i can at least watch the news. i also asked him about using relay towers to get the signal to fringe areas. if neither suggestion is followed by congress, i believe there will be a 100 square mile blackout in mid south illinois feb. 17th 2009.

I am just about in the same boat as esso. Out of the 10-12 we get with rabbit ears- we can now get 3---- if the wind is not blowing, don't walk around in the room, planes don't fly over, raining, snowing, and so on. Now one thing we found out with the converter box is that if the box is on and pluged in the picture is fuzzy, take it off the picture is better on analog. Yes you will get more channels from some stations as the say but they don't tell you that you that you can and will get less different channels. I found a site that it says digital will have less power.

 Somebodys pockets are getting lined on this one. It sucks

Even an amplified outdoor antenna with a rotator on a 25 foot mast doesn't result in great DTV reception. I was able to get 13 analog channels, some not well, but good enough to watch, but using a DTV converter has cut that down to only 8. In summer, it's down to 5 because of all the leaves on the 40 foot tall trees surrounding my house. When the wind blows, it can go down to as low as THREE viewable channels.

I remember a book I read a few years ago that explained all the backstabbing and compromises in developing DTV, and it was enough to make me quite angry. The main reason we're getting DTV is that Uncle Sam was making noises about finding spectrum space to auction off for revenue. The NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) was told that they had better come up with a good reason to stave off auctions and hold onto their precious spectrum. The only thing they could come up with was DTV.

There was also a lot of resistance to using a technology that had the NIH curse attached to it: the Not Invented Here syndrome. The people charged with choosing a standard went with one that was clearly inferior rather than the superior European technology... simply because it wasn't American.

Since when is it government's job to dictate to me that I have to junk a perfectly good, functional TV, set up a boondoggle program with MY tax money to buy "converter boxes" for TV viewers?.  Gawd, the founding fathers must be rolling around in their graves.

You'll note how the former analog channels are going to be reserved for "public service" radio channels, for which Motorola produces hardware, and which is at the bottom of this crap.  It ought to be called "the radio manufacturers, cable TV, and dish providers profitibality act".

Those of us who live in fringe reception areas have made do with our unsophisticated antenna/amplifier, etc. set-ups.  Thanks to our wonderful gummint, we now get pixellated crap until the screen goes blank.  Thanks a big pant load, Big Brother.  I love how these glib AH's on TV are cheerfully warning us we need to get our little converter boxes in time--hey stupido--some of us already got the stupid boxes, and the f*****g things don't work.  What are you going to do for us?  Where's our freaking bailout, you a-holes?  How about just leaving things alone?  If and when it becomes advantageous for the country to migrate to digital, the MARKET will dictate it, we don't need government pukes, funded and pushed by fat cat industrial interests, to cram shit down our throats that is not a suitable replacement for current, adequate technology.

I'm jumping in late, but our household is one of those that will lose its local TV channels completely on Feb. 17, despite our having done everything according to instructions.

Cable TV is not available in our rural area.  We get 3 of the 4 major networks over-the-air via a large, directional VHF/UHF antenna at the top of a 24-ft pole in our yard.  Even that requires an amplifier and a rotator, since the transmitters are 60+ miles away and in different directions.  Two of the channels come in clearly; the third is only fair (snow and ghosts).  We also subscribe to satellite TV, but our provider does not offer "locals" because the city they come from is too far down on the Nielsen list.

We bought 2 digital converter boxes and hooked them up to our antenna system, but we get no digital signals at all.  That is likely due to distance, terrain, obstacles, and the "cliff effect."  So, despite being able to receive clear analog signals, our large, powerful outdoor antenna system is not good enough to bring in any digital signals.

Despite our inability to pull in a digital signal, our household would be considered "DTV-ready" on the Nielsen surveys.  That's because we 1) bought a converter box and 2) already subscribe to satellite TV.  No one seems to care whether we are actually capable of receiving a digital signal.  I've written to 2 of the local affiliate stations, seeking advice about antennas and signal strength.  One didn't respond at all; the other said we should already be getting their signal.  I wrote to www.dtv.gov, and they said since the test households in Wilmington NC were able to get a digital signal once they installed their converter boxes, we should be getting one, too.

This situation is unacceptable, but I don't know how a postponement would change anything.

Since when was TV a God-given right to mankind?  What a bunch of whiners. Keep the deadline and move on...

Since I live in an apartment building and live in a area that might not be able to receive the digital signal I am forced to use cable television or buy a new teleision and even that is taking a risk so my best buy is to go cable, I wounder if the government thought this thing through.

Another problem is I don't have enough information from the local television stations as what to do.  So like a lot of people in my apartment building I will have to rely on the community television but I live in an apartment complex that has that option a lot a seniors will not have that option.

I think that the converter box is just a lot of problems, the number one problem is most stores do not have enough convertor boxes on hand.  Everytime I call they have allways run out of stock.

One store advertised a box for $40.00 but when I asked about that they said they sold now for $49.99 and up and what if I buy the thing and it does not work, then what.

I think this was not well thought out.  If this is for the convenience of the cell phone group it is not fair, because some people do not need to have a phone on their hip and then the towers are put up without the people getting proper notice.

Kind of like living under a electrical tower the sound of buzzing always in your ear.

I believe that the August 31st, 2011 proposal(for the death of Analog) will not work(I actually oppose a shutoff date unless market penetration of Digital(includes relay stations(Translators))  hits a 95% penetration rate via the Nielson Market surveys(this includes Cable, IPTV, Over the Air, satelite and FiOS) then the market(for example Nielson DMA #4: Philadelphia) has an automatic right to kill Analog, literally)