Digital Conversion

Digital Conversion Has Been Put OFF for 4 months.

Lee

Probably a good thing.

Gene

I think its a dumb move to delay it any longer. Ok, maybe a month more would be acceptable but four months throws the broadcast industry into an expensive frenzy.

EDIT - the shortage of coupons is a serious issue and the government is to blame for not allotting enough funds and taking six weeks to mail them and all that. Thats easily solved by something like filling out a rebate form at the dealer and they can refund you 40 bucks when they get around to it just like any other retail rebate offer. ( I'm 2 months into waiting for a rebate check for some brake pads from a parts house )

I don't think I speak solely for myself - many of us, ummm, lied, to get a couple of coupons even though we have sat or cable but not on ALL sets in the house. And/or got them just because I knew I could get the "just-in-case" box by only forking up 7 dollars out of pocket.

If they go to a 'rebate' scheme the price of those boxes will drop down to coffee money so no 'poor' person has to come up with $47 or 50 in cash. And if the gubmint rebates 40 dollars some of these people will be TICKLED to make a few bucks on the deal.

Many of the complaints about reception cannot be addressed and resolved UNTIL they go fully digital and allow the digital xmtrs to go to their post-2/17 channel allocation and at full power. Nobody has promised "glitch-free" and this delay simply delays the inevitable.

The reason I'm against the new system is simple.
In the beginning, the Japanese offered us one viable system that was totally compatible with Analog.
The Chinese manufacturers had a fit saying that would cut into their new televison sales.
Our beloved gov. buckled, and, accepted the opposing system from the Chinese.

I had to have my cable company out this morning for a repair.
The cable repair person confirmed what I already knew, and, nobody else seems to...
In reality, our gov. intends to use the old analog frequencies for a spy network.
What, or, whom they want to spy on is only conjecture.
But, my question is this.
I know that what I am told is the gov. is hoping that oned the new system takes over, people will eventually dump all their old analog tv's.
As you all know, that's not likely.
Especially not the antique ones.
Un-real thinking on gov.'s part.
So, my question is what stops people from receiving the spy stations?
Gee... New gov. networks.
Spy tv.....
Me thinks they need to re-think this idea....
Bill Cahill

No, the government wants to lease/sell those frequencies to the cell phone providers. Nothing about 'spy' here. It is just all about money. When is it not?

Gene

Well, unfortunately we ALL are paying for those coupons. BILLIONS of taxpayer funds have already been spent on DTV and the stimulus package has an additional 650 million to cover more coupons. And 15 million for a "call center" to answer questions about DTV. Ya' don't get something for nothing. (I read it'll be over $350/ family in tax)
As far as the Gov. using those frequencies for spying, I couldn't imagine why they would use those frequencies when they are limited range and available to almost everyone. I believe they are to be used for control and wireless access. The Gov. has limitless access to the entire spectrum for any reason at all. And I'm quite sure that any sensitive material would be well encrypted. Even most local PD's are switching to encryption.
If it were true that the Government would be using those frequencies, it wouldn't be anything we could view anyway.

Bill, I don't know where you heard about "spy" frequencies (this is the first time I have heard that one!) but I suggest you might want to re-evaluate your news source. Those frequencies were auctioned off last year and all of the big name internet and technology players were in the bidding. You have to accuse them all of being "spy" outfits

Leasing those frequencies for $$$ was not the motive for the change to digital. That was an outcome of the change. They took away channels 70-83 decades ago to allow for expansion of other services and in recent years channels 51-70 have been used in some metro areas. Now 51-70 are nationwide which is something sorely needed for effective, universal, nationwide networks.

The change to digital allows adjacent channel TV transmission in the same market. In the old days they had to separate by 6 channels (36 MHz) and later they scunched in even closer to 2-3 channels. Now that the technology does away with all that dead space its only natural that the entire US can fit into a 50 channel scheme instead of a 70 channel scheme and give 20 channels to other services. Nothing nefarious there.

Switch has announced to death for the past year. Those who snoozed and can't live without TV will find a way quick once their boobtubes go dark. I recently heard on the news that many stations are going to switch on the 17th anyway reciting scheduling conflicts and expense. I think they all should.

Bill Cahill wrote:
In the beginning, the Japanese offered us one viable system that was totally compatible with Analog. The Chinese manufacturers had a fit saying that would cut into their new televison sales.
Our beloved gov. buckled, and, accepted the opposing system from the Chinese.

Hi Bill,
Can you point to a source for that info? I've been Googling around and found the Japanese did indeed have a 1100+ line analog FM video HD system and the US ATSC scheme used some of its aspects. However, Japan abandoned that idea since it required excessive bandwidth (it apparently was never used for OTA broadcasting and I don't see that it would have been compatible) and since has adopted something resembling the European COFDM system.
Its also my understanding that the ATSC plan was developed right here in the good old USofA, not by the Chinese. The ATSC organization has been around for 25 years and is based in Washington DC. The Chinese didn't adopt any standard until August 2006 and its different than anybody else's.

http://www.atsc.org

Regarding the spy theory, I don't understand this one at all. Why would a spy use a 6 mHz wide signal, that would most likely spill onto either a digital TV signal or onjto a whole bunch of other services, and hoping he doesn't get noticed? Would said spy also believe that every one of the billion or so TV sets out there will hit the dumpster without a single survivor -- especially when the majority of TV sets will still be usable on cable or satellite? Plain and simple, the biggest reason the "old" system is being turned off is because it takes up a whopping segment of the radio spectrum. In contrast the AM broadcast band is only a smidgeon, so is still in use in spite of being an obsolete medium. No, spies have better means of communicating.

I've also heard a comment from a major talk show host. This proves that although I'm in agreement with most of what they say, I do NOT automatically soak in all of it and take my marching orders from them. I think about it and make my own conclusions. The comment, made over a month ago, was that there will indeed be a vote to delay the TV transition. The reason is that it's the poor people with low IQ's that vote in their direction, that haven't a clue as to what's happening to their TV sets, that will suddenly be disconnected from their news source that gives THEM THEIR marching orders. Now it's true that with all the energy-saving talk, nobody ever tells you to turn off your TV set -- something to think about, but I sincerely doubt if this is the reason why the vote passed.

I claimed two coupons and purchased two converter boxes. Just after getting them, Verizon began installing Fios in our neighborhood and I signed up -- giving me service for four TV sets, eliminating the need for the boxes. So they're still unopened, sitting on the shelf. Just like my drawer full of antenna wire and impedance-matching adapters, I'll keep them because the day may come when I'll need one, but I can betcha that a year from now these things will be lining the halls of the Goodwill store.

I'm also glad, in a way, that the FCC decided to totally throw out an obsolete system in favor of a new one, rather than try and adapt the old one by throwing in extra data. The conventional TV system is a total mess anyway. You start with a video signal and a sound signal, cut off part of one video sideband to make it fit, change the sound to FM but keep the video AM because with FM a ghost would become a smear, then move the IF to 45 mHz to eliminate set-to-set interference but in so doing removing channel 1, then add a ridiculously archaic and complicated chroma system to allow compatible color, then throw in all sorts of extras such as subtitles, color-corrections, stereo multiplex sound, and other what-not, and keep on adding with the high hopes that any and all new signals don't interfere with the rest of the signal on the same channel, let alone adjacent channels. With totally new and far superior technology, do you try to somehow imbed the extra stuff onto some existing mess that was originally put into use back in 1939, or do you throw it out and start over? I agree with the start-over idea, especially since it includes a provision that allows existing sets to become compatible with only a small piece of hardware.

The part I disagree with is the notion that we must spend more millions/billions for more coupons to subsidize more boxes. Again, the program has been in place for a year and there's no reason why anyone should have had a problem finding a box during this time. Those who are so clueless as to not knowing about the change, will now wake up in June to the same shock he otherwise would have had in February. If he suddenly needs a box, he can get one at a Circuit City liquidation sale or maybe at Goodwill.

I dare you to find a converter box any time in the near future at any of those places. I don't swallow the claim either of the low IQ being the problem.
As for the Chinese, ok., I made a mistake there. I thought it was the Chinese mannufacturers that offered our present competing system of hdtv.
The Japanese system never made it past our US government tables here.
They were the ones that decided which hdtv system we'd use.
The Japanese offered it first, and, mannufacturers had a fit.
Next thing I knew, the system we are going to use was offered. Big sticker? Of course, not compatible with analog system.
We had to make a converter so old tv's could still be used, which was a backfire in mannufacturer's faces, which had hoped for large increases in sales of new tv's.

I'm not opposed to the concept of a better picture. It's the way we went about it.
Further, the system still shows some inconsistencies, and, instabilities.
Bill Cahill

Could you provide some details of this compatible Japanese system. I've looked all over and cannot find any reference other than the 1100-line analog FM-video that took up about 24 MHz per channel and was only used briefly for satellite transmission before it was abandoned. Here's an article from 1999 describing it.
http://www.cs.cf.ac.uk/Dave/MM/OLD_BSC/node382.html

That was a direct-to-home satellite system. The present (and first) terrestrial broadcasting began in 2003 with a fully digital system and it, of course, is not compatible with analog television sets. They are scheduled to shut off their analog in 2011.