The end of analog TV ??

[adam]

Of course it's an expense. You have to pay for content, whether it's a one time fee, or a monthly charge. Television broadcasts aren't free. Some people may have been receiving it for free, but this will come to an abrupt halt with digital.

I did not say it was not an expense, I said a new tuner would not be expensive, and I qualified expensive as being an amount relative to my personal standards.

I agree its an expense inherant in receiving television broadcasts, but whether it is an expensive one or not is a matter of opinion.

Unless you are talking about people illegally recieving cable and such, no people are not reciving television broadcasts for free. Like I said several times in this thread, over the air broadcasts are a product like anything else. You pay for these signals by subjecting yourself to advertising, and it is the proceeds from the sale of these ads that provide the sole reason for broadcasters to even provide this service. So, just like with anything else, if your existing equipment cannot make use of a product out in the marketplace, then you either find a substitute, do without, or bite the bullet and upgrade your equipment. Complaining about this switch to digital is like complaining that your convenient grocer across the street moved downtown. If you still want that product you'll find a way to go get it. The only difference is that in this case we have the government telling that grocer to move, but in this instance there is no question that they have the authority to do that.

[hudsonf]

ROF; I disagree with internet access being a luxury and not a necessity. Just look at your phone bill. We are being taxed so those who can't afford it can have telephone and internet access. I wouldn't be all to surprised if we don't get taxed so everyone can have HDTV.

[edDV]

Many nations in the world require a license per TV set (a tax per year similar to a car tax) to receive any broadcast.

[Gurm]

I find the attitudes in here appalling, and extremely out of touch with the reality of things.

1. TV might, in fact, be a "luxury". But WOE to anyone who tries to take away Joe Sixpack's "Survivor" fix on Thursday nights. It's political suicide for any lawmaker to back such an idea.

2. You can rabbit on all you like about how a digital tuner isn't "expensive" by "your standards". Guess what? For a VAST MAJORITY of the country, a $100 doohicky for what has always been a "free" service is a RIDICULOUS expense.

3. As for the number of households who can receive certain signals, let's have some quotes shall we? From an excellent article about Sen. John McCain's DTV bill...

Getting to that 85 percent threshold is taking longer than most policy makers expected, with fewer than 10 percent of American homes possessing DTV receiving equipment.

Wow! So you wanna SELL DTV boxes to 90% of America? Hmm, backs me up doesn't it?

Consequently, barring additional government intervention to correct for this previous mistake, it is going to take a lot longer—some experts estimate perhaps until 2020—before the 85 percent threshold is met.

Oops!

But there remains one big problem: What should Congress do about the small percentage of households, many of which are elderly or low-income, that do not have a cable or satellite subscription? Politicians will be extremely sensitive to the needs of this group, which continues to rely on over-the-air broadcast signals and rooftop antennas to receive television signals. And broadcasters will likely employ "leave no TV viewer behind" rhetoric to strike fear in the heart of Congress.

Wow. Bummer, huh?

From AARP/Congressional report:

According to a 2004 Congressional Research Service report, while the number of consumers purchasing digital television sets is increasing every year, only about 1% of households have purchased an integrated DTV, which contains a built-in digital tuner.

Hmm. Wow, that's not many, now is it?

According to a 2004 survey, about 21 million consumers rely on over-the-air broadcast-only television. These are the consumers who will be without any television at the point of the transition unless steps are taken to adapt their television sets. In recent testimony before this Subcommittee, the GAO reported that of the 21 million over-the-air broadcast-only households, 48 percent have incomes under $30,000. According to the report, "non-white and Hispanic households are more likely to rely on over-the-air television than are white and non-Hispanic households." Of the 21 million households, approximately 8.6 million include at least one person over the age of 50. Millions of these consumers are on fixed incomes and/or are in lower income brackets.

21 Million households. That's a LOT of people. If each household has an AVERAGE of 2.5 people (that's being conservative), that's 50 MILLION PEOPLE. That's ... wait for it ... 20% of our population. Hmm, that kinda BLOWS AWAY the previous assertions (all made by entities with a vested interest) that 90% of households have cable. Oops!

We could get into whether TV is really "free" or should be, but the truth is that a gigantic block of VOTING AMERICANS feels that they are entitled... and can't afford to not be.

[adam]

Gurm its clear that you don't even bother to understand this technology, so this is the last time I will explain this.

The requirement to be DTV ready is only required if you are not ALREADY a cable or satellite subscriber. Yes less than 10% of American households are DTV ready, but that's because ~90% of them don't need to be!

They wanted to get DTV receivers well ingrained in the marketplace to ease the transition. But even if we fail to reach that 85% mark, you are still only talking about cutting people off from transmissions if they don't have cable, or satelite, or DTV tuners. That's if they have NONE of these things, not if they just don't have one or the other. Look at your numbers. They aren't mutually exclusive.

As your own damn quote says, the amount of people this will effect is a "small percentage."

What should Congress do about the small percentage of households, many of which are elderly or low-income, that do not have a cable or satellite subscription.

Yes this legislation will affect millions of people. Most legislation does. No one ever said otherwise. But this still constitutes a small minority of the viewing public. That's just a fact.

I will direct you one last time to the original article that we are all discussing.

85 percent of Americans now get all their television from cable or satellite providers, so for the most part the change-over won’t affect them.

[edDV]

10-15% are affected directly, more if you include the garage or basement TV that you haven't run a cable to.

That number reduces if you consider that there is no demand* for telecommunication spectrum in rural areas except along major highways. Rural areas will be affected last.

I suggest you give a DTV tuner to all your elderly relatives that need one next Christmas and help them hook it up. Next form a community group to do the same for the others who are needy. You probably can get foundation support to provide these free with volunteer help to install.

That said the political hacks will attempt to make hay from this.

The entire plan was hatched under the Democrats (heavy telecom political contribution support during the mid to late 90s) and accepted as necessary by the Republicans (probably also getting heavy lobbiest contribution support). The Dems also take the heat for being in bed with Hollywood interests over encryption policy. The Republicans would be happy to see Hollywood just go away. This is a golden political hack issue only by the Libertarians (gov't control of our lives) or Socialists (someone must buy me a HDTV for free).

This is a similar issue to a new highway destroying the unfortunate neighborhood (as documented by Douglas Adams in The HitchHikers Guide to the Galaxy).

Those with a broad view will see that 802.11 has been a huge success and other longer range wireless technology is in out best collective interest as a society. Wireless broadband will rule and TV was wasting the needed spectrum.

* there is demand but adequate empty VHF channels exist for local broadband internet use.

[Gurm]

*sigh*

Look, I understand the damn technology. I just think that it's unrealistic to f**k over the people who just can't afford to get modern. They're paying their TV fees in ad-watching time, just like everyone else. Who will help the 80-year old grandma watch Wopner or Barker now? Will YOU donate a $100 tuner to every old lady who doesn't have one? Is Congress going to donate a $100 tuner to 20 MILLION households across the nation? 2 BILLION DOLLARS in tuner upgrades to Joe Sixpack's elderly aunt?

It is utter disregard for the less fortunate, that's what it is. How DARE you be so damn anxious to take away one of the few pleasures the poor can have for nothing more than the time it takes them to watch the latest Jiffy Lube ad?

[edDV]

*sigh*

Look, I understand the damn technology. I just think that it's unrealistic to f**k over the people who just can't afford to get modern. They're paying their TV fees in ad-watching time, just like everyone else. Who will help the 80-year old grandma watch Wopner or Barker now? Will YOU donate a $100 tuner to every old lady who doesn't have one? Is Congress going to donate a $100 tuner to 20 MILLION households across the nation? 2 BILLION DOLLARS in tuner upgrades to Joe Sixpack's elderly aunt?

It is utter disregard for the less fortunate, that's what it is. How DARE you be so damn anxious to take away one of the few pleasures the poor can have for nothing more than the time it takes them to watch the latest Jiffy Lube ad?

Gurm for President '06
Two decoders in every pot. Lots of pot in every garage. Wait, did I get that wrong?

[adam]

I'm not saying its fair, I'm simply clarifying the actual numbers we're dealing with.

Getting all angy because you think this will effect 99.99% of the US population (your actual words in your first post) is a major difference from the actual number of 10-15%.

You are entitled to your opinion on why this legislation is bad, but trying to back it up with bullshit numbers is immature.

[edDV]

We as broadband tech consumers will benefit from the released wireless bandwidth. We should help those uninformed few trapped having their TV suddenly going to snow.

The interests that be should largely fund these efforts.
What else ?

[EvilWizardGlick]

1. TV might, in fact, be a "luxury". But WOE to anyone who tries to take away Joe Sixpack's "Survivor" fix on Thursday nights. It's political suicide for any lawmaker to back such an idea.

Now for what REALLY is going on.
Here are a few snipetts
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/SB979142461229012934.ht
In 1986 U.S. broadcasters, concerned because the FCC was about to give away spectrum in the TV band to fire, police and rescue services, invited the Japanese to demonstrate high-definition TV to Congress. As a result, the Federal Communications Commission established the Advisory Committee on Advanced Television Services, or ACATS, to recommend an American high-definition TV system. The FCC also deferred dedicating to emergency services any of the TV spectrum that might be needed to implement such a system.
.....
Though the world certainly won't come to an end if average Americans can't get crisper pictures on their TVs for a few more years, there's a lot riding on a prompt and successful transition to a digital system. In balancing the budget in 1997, Congress counted on the money the government would get from auctioning off, presumably to the wireless industry, the second channel being used by each broadcaster throughout the transition. Wireless-services providers are very eager to get their hands on this prime spectrum. And consumers are eager to get the services that the wireless providers want to provide using this spectrum. But the spectrum won't be available until the transition to digital TV is complete in a given broadcast market.

That hasn't stopped the FCC, at the instruction of Congress, from proceeding with the auctions, which begin this spring. Now imagine the wireless provider poised to bid. It knows that this is prime spectrum, the best it's ever likely to see. But it doesn't know whether the spectrum will be available in 2006, as originally scheduled, or years later, and it needs additional spectrum soon. And if the company's the successful bidder, it will have to pay for this spectrum within months, even though it won't have access to it for a period the duration of which it can't predict.

This uncertainty about when the spectrum slated for auction will be available, coupled with the requirement that it be paid for immediately, will almost certainly cause it to be sold at a significant discount to its true value. Congress, in its haste to balance the budget with money it didn't have, may wind up having given away tens of billions of dollars that might have been collected if wireless-industry bidders could have been more certain about when they'd get what they were buying. Can Congress and the FCC orchestrate a prompt and predictable transition to digital TV (and get taxpayers top dollar for a valuable public resource), or is it already too late to unscramble this egg? Stay tuned.

And that article was from way back in 2001!
Congress already sold the Analog Spectrum and used the profit to BALANCE the BUDGET!
In the unanticipated world of modern deficit spending congress NEEDS that money to avert further budgetary fiascos.

[edDV]

1. TV might, in fact, be a "luxury". But WOE to anyone who tries to take away Joe Sixpack's "Survivor" fix on Thursday nights. It's political suicide for any lawmaker to back such an idea.

Now for what REALLY is going on.
....

This uncertainty about when the spectrum slated for auction will be available, coupled with the requirement that it be paid for immediately, will almost certainly cause it to be sold at a significant discount to its true value. Congress, in its haste to balance the budget with money it didn't have, may wind up having given away tens of billions of dollars that might have been collected if wireless-industry bidders could have been more certain about when they'd get what they were buying. Can Congress and the FCC orchestrate a prompt and predictable transition to digital TV (and get taxpayers top dollar for a valuable public resource), or is it already too late to unscramble this egg? Stay tuned.

And that article was from way back in 2001!
Congress already sold the Analog Spectrum and used the profit to BALANCE the BUDGET!
In the unanticipated world of modern deficit spending congress NEEDS that money to avert further budgetary fiascos.

Cynic would say ...
Don't you think every Congressman (both parties) and his barber + other buddies is having his 3rd cousin buy up all the spectrum options?

Congress will push the "Open Cash Drawer" option at the optimal time for profit. Expect "Oh poor GrandMa" arguements to drive spectrum value higher and higher, but gov't prices lower, until the time is right.

/Cynic