Senate Delays Digital TV Transition; Will The Situation Be Any Different In June?

from the doubtful dept

Tue, Jan 27th 2009 1:14am — Mike Masnick

It still makes little sense to us to delay the digital TV switchover beyond February 17th. The switch has already been delayed for nearly a decade, and anyone who doesn't know about it yet isn't likely to know about it when June roles around either. Yet, for political expediency, it looks like the Senate has approved plans to move the transition back to June (the House still needs to vote on this, but it seems likely to pass), which will end up slowing the rollout of various wireless services, thereby harming most consumers a lot more than this helps them. Hopefully, in June, politicians don't roll over again and push back the date again.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: congress, delay, digital tv

56 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

american, 27 Jan 2009 @ 2:58am

i hate obama already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2009 @ 5:43am
  
  Re:
  I know! How could that horrid man push the Senate to delay the switch to digital! I say we impeach him!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- american2, 27 Jan 2009 @ 6:20am
  
  Re:
  Here we go again...stupid Americans blaming every decision they don't like on one person.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jeff (profile), 27 Jan 2009 @ 7:01am
    
    Re: Re:
    Don't put us all in that basket.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jeff (profile), 27 Jan 2009 @ 7:28am
  
  Re:
  This is not Obama's doing. I have discussed this very issue 6 - 12 months ago with colleagues. We knew it would be pushed back, yet again.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DS, 27 Jan 2009 @ 11:09am
    
    Re: Re:
    Umm, maybe because some of Obama's advisors called for this such a thing?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Twinrova, 27 Jan 2009 @ 4:00am

This isn't surprising news at all.
Once again, the United States government does something which goes against the public opinion and, instead, caters to the 1% who don't even own a television.

Good thing many cable broadcasters are telling the government to shove it, as they're switching regardless of the deadline.

Sadly, billions will be wasted with this delay which is not a good thing to do as many jobs just vanished when they're desperately needed by people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2009 @ 7:53am
  
  Re: This isn't surprising news at all.
  Um,
  Quote Twinrova;
  "Good thing many cable broadcasters are telling the government to shove it, as they're switching regardless of the deadline."
  
  What? That statement is nonsensical. The "cable broadcasters" don't use public spectrum, they use wires to distribute their signal (and the satellite TV industry has been digital for years).
  The DTV transition does NOT require cable companies to do anything.
  
  However MANY of the cable companies are using the confusion caused by the transition to digital to fake (some call it defraud) their customers into more expensive "digital cable" plans.
  
  Twinrova, have you been confused by comcast or do you work for them?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jdubs, 27 Jan 2009 @ 11:37pm
  
  Re: This isn't surprising news at all.
  Cable companies have been digital for a quite some time now. That that the box is all about.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2009 @ 4:56am

Maybe it is because the Government screwed up with their coupon program. I know of someone that got coupons back in September, but didn't try to redeem them until this month. She didn't realize they had a 90 day expiration on them, and was turned away when trying to pick up the digital converter boxes.

I myself have cable, and if worse came to worst, I have an LCD TV with a built in HD tuner, so I could care less. However, I'll bet most of those who got coupons, didn't realize there was an expiration date on them. On top of that, how the heck can the Government not have the tracking ability to not know if a coupon that expired over a month ago, has not been used. Apparently, if you have been issued a coupon, and didn't use it before the expiration, you're out of luck, because the Government will not issue you another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rob, 27 Jan 2009 @ 6:52am
  
  Re:
  I got one of the vouchers for an older TV and it says in huge print on the materials it comes with that you must you it within 90 days or it'll be canceled and a replacement will not be issued. They even provide online retailers and brick and mortar stores where the vouchers are accepted for convenience sake.
  
  Maybe they want to ensure that they don't have millions of dollars in vouchers sitting around never being used. That might actually make sense.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DeathsPal, 27 Jan 2009 @ 7:01am
  
  Re:
  I Have to agree the coupon program was a bust. Where I live (Semi urban area) all of the stores were out of boxes when I got my coupons.... I Was unable to buy one before they expired. I contacted the FCC office that handles the coupons and told them about it and they said they would resend some. Now I'm on a waiting list because they ran out of funds.
  
  FCC=Failed Communication Commission....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased), 27 Jan 2009 @ 7:52am
    
    Re: Re:
    I assume you have heard of the internet since you are posting on it. You can find superior converter boxes on the internet at equal or better prices even when you include the shipping.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2009 @ 7:54am
  
  Re:
  Maybe it is because the Government screwed up with their coupon program. I know of someone that got coupons back in September, but didn't try to redeem them until this month. She didn't realize they had a 90 day expiration on them, and was turned away when trying to pick up the digital converter boxes.
  
  And that was a government screw-up!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2009 @ 8:32am
  
  Re:
  Actually the government will release up to 2 coupons per household so even if they won't replace an expired coupon, a household can get a second.
  
  I'm iffy on this delay but the availability of converter boxes in my area has been almost zero until December 08 so I can see where some people have genuinely been unable to prepare properly. Me, I bought an indoor antenna because all this hype made me realize I didn't need cable at all to get local channels because my TV is already digital. : )
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mr. Magoo, 27 Jan 2009 @ 9:10am
  
  Re:
  @Anonymous Coward (4:56am)
  How is it the government's fault that your friend didn't realize the coupons have a 90 day expiration on them? It's displayed prominently on the front of the cards. Yes, it was dumb of the government to have these expire within 90 days, but it was irresponsible of your friend not to pay attention to the rules. Now the government is going to moddle-coddle her and others like her, causing more confusion and delays to something which should have been completed years ago.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Haywood, 27 Jan 2009 @ 5:03am

Obamanation
If they push it back to 3009 the same percentage will not be ready.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2009 @ 6:41am
  
  Re: Obamanation
  Nah the percentage will drop slowly as older TV's go out of service and are replaced. Of course I still have the set that my wife bought to watch the winter Olympics when she was in college in 1986 and that one still works fine.
  
  The problem is that lots of areas are no longer served by the over the air signal when the switch really happens.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
NullOp, 27 Jan 2009 @ 5:10am

Ready or not...
The switchover has been only slightly less publizised than "Who shot JR!" Now you tell me someone is 'not ready.' There will ALWAYS be someone not ready. And just for the record i'm "not ready" to permit companies to lay off workers and bonus the top brass!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Haywood, 27 Jan 2009 @ 5:43am

The cost and confusion.
Countless companies have made decisions predicated on a date certain and now
the government is poised to muck it up.

* Many municipalities have contracted to switch over to new frequencies on
Feb 18th and de-activate their existing emergency transmitters. Workers are
poised to re-equip police cars, ambulances, and the like. Technicians have
been hired and trained to accomplish the change-over on a specific date.

* Other companies are ready to market services using the freed-up bands.
They won't be able to do so for three months. The payments on their loans
for new equipment won't be delayed, but their anticipated revenue will be
zero.

Bottom line: There is a significant cost to hundreds of companies and
governmental agencies. Some emergency services may even go off the air as
the people to whom a city sold their (supposedly redundant) equipment demand
access to THEIR equipment.

Suppose I borrowed $10 million to buy the city of Chicago's police radios
and in turn sold them all to the government of Costa Rico. The contract with
Costa Rico specifies delivery by March 30th. I've contracted with technicans
to disassemble and pack the existing equipment by March 1st, deliver it to a
shipping company by March 3rd for transit on a ship that departs Chicago for
Costa Rico on March 5th. I've already paid the city of Chicago for the
equipment, paid salaries to the technicians, posted a deposit to the
shipping company, etc.

Now the government says: "Time out?"

I'm screwed.

Effective commerce cannot efficiently exist based on governmental whim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Azuravian, 27 Jan 2009 @ 6:10am
  
  Re: The cost and confusion.
  Actually, in your example wouldn't the city of Chicago be screwed. I would hope that in your contract, you specified a date that the equipment would be handed over to you, therefore on that date, Chicago would have to hand over equipment that they still need.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2009 @ 6:17am
  
  Re: The cost and confusion.
  Um. Your example is fucking retarded. Costa Rica can use the same exact frequencies all they want. They probably do. This is an internal issue. I just really can't believe how incredibly stupid your example is.
  
  Oh, your point is valid and up until then you were good. But man! Choose a better example next time.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - limaxray, 27 Jan 2009 @ 6:40am
    
    Re: Re: The cost and confusion.
    Umm, actually his example is a very real example of what is actually happening - he may actually been dealing with this very situation. A lot of wireless communication gear has been bought and sold because of this transition and delaying will hurt a large number of people. Most notably are public safety agencies who are getting large chunks of this freed up spectrum- large cities have sold off a lot of their old gear to smaller cities and other countries because they are rolling out new unified public safety wireless networks.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - sajjon, 27 Jan 2009 @ 7:56am
    
    Re: Re: The cost and confusion.
    LoL, Try reading/comprehending what is being stated above and you may realize you completely missed the point and may require some reading comprehension classes. (and make sure you are not the idiot before flaming somone)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2009 @ 7:41am
  
  Re: The cost and confusion.
  Amen Amen and Amen.
  
  What is more important, public safety or TV? The reconfiguration has been a massive effort (see http://www.800ta.org/ ) and now broadcasters are going to be allowed to continue to clog the new public safety spectrum?
  
  On the public side, the Transition Administrator has been browbeating everyone to get this done. This switch is completely and utterly ridiculous.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DS78, 27 Jan 2009 @ 6:39am

Indecision
This shows the lack of balls that the government has. Regardless of party affiliation. Step up boys and make the switch. All the money we've spent. Awareness is somewhere above 90% now. If you're not aware of the switch you probably don't own a TV (ITS EVERYWHERE). The people who failed to act can spend their own money and get a converter box. LETS DO THIS ALREADY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jaycee, 27 Jan 2009 @ 6:48am

congress, roll back digital tv.
The change you have been waiting for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BinaryRock, 27 Jan 2009 @ 6:50am

I just don't get the hold up. What's the point of pushing the date back? Anyone who isn't ready probably has no business watching TV anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sergio, 27 Jan 2009 @ 7:36am

Don't wait
My area (RI) has been pretty progressive with the DTV swtich, in fact, CW went Digital only about a month ago. I've gone ahead and disabled all the analog stations on all my HDTVs since everything seems to be coming in at full power now. I hope all the other local stations here keep with the original February 17th date. They've been telling people for months that it's February 17th and they should stick to that.

It will just confuse more people if they turn on their TV on the 18th and still see something. They may incorrectly interpret that as being DTV ready.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FredW, 27 Jan 2009 @ 8:05am

It is about the Presidency
Who would want to be the president who 2 weeks after being in office takes television away from 20% of the country. It does not matter if the new president was Republican or Democrat. You could see this one coming on for a long time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DS, 27 Jan 2009 @ 11:11am
  
  Re: It is about the Presidency
  "takes television away"??
  
  Wait, what?
  
  What's being taken away from who?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Matt T, 27 Jan 2009 @ 1:25pm
    
    Re: Re: It is about the Presidency
    He's saying that Barack Obama doesn't want to be seen as someone who would "take away" (in this case get rid of their analog signal) television from the 4% of the population that didn't prepare for this. The public opinion backlash would keep him from making a move like this in the first weeks in office. He's not actually taking anything away, but people would look at it like that.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only one thing. . ., 27 Jan 2009 @ 8:17am

This is about. . .
Democrats gaining/holding on to the votes of low income/education families. If the Dems say, "Go ahead with the transition" and their constituents lose the capability to watch television then a) they will complain about their democrat representative and b) they will not have any way to preach to them about Obama's greatness/spin how he's raping their liberties into a positive thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ted, 27 Jan 2009 @ 8:43am
  
  Re: This is about. . .
  I understand why people who view everything in a partisan way want to make this a partisan action, but it isn't a Democratic push - the delay passed _unanimously_ in the Senate (that's right, all the Republicans voted for it too...)
  
  For the record, I disagree vehemently with the delay, but I think it is happening because _all_ politicians are afraid of offending voters.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
River Rat, 27 Jan 2009 @ 8:20am

I smell a rat
Smells like a campaign contribution payback
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave, 27 Jan 2009 @ 8:23am

More time to stop this travesty
Pushing back the date gives us more time to orgainize and file a lawsuit to stop this attack on the general public. The real reason they are pushing for this is because they want to be able to DRM all broadcasts. The FCC is complacent because they see the opportunity to make big money selling the freed spectrum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- limaxray, 27 Jan 2009 @ 8:32am
  
  Re: More time to stop this travesty
  No, the real reason for it is it frees up huge amounts of wasted spectrum so:
  
  a) wireless carriers can roll out the next generation of wireless services
  b) fire, ambulance, and police at the municipal, state and federal levels can all actually communicate with each other using a national public safety wireless network
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joe, 27 Jan 2009 @ 8:27am

anyone who doesn't know about this isn't watching broadcast tv
The real issue in my opinion is cable providers ads trying to get non-cable subscribers to subscribe due to the digital transition. Anyone who hasnt' seen ads or read about this is living in a bubble and not watching tv.

I say push on and when their tv's don't work and they call their manufacturer/store asking about their product make sure those people are informed so they can explain what happened in lamens terms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawrence, 27 Jan 2009 @ 8:28am

Delaying is stupid
There are several reason people haven't gone out to buy converters.

1. With the Downturn in economy and even with a coupon, people won't easily spend to buy the converter unless absolutely necessary.
2. Quite a few people have cable boxes, or wired cable so there is no need for the converter box.
3. In some areas where maybe you could use converter box, you probably get a total of 3 digital channels right now or some digital stations are a "flea" power, meaning they have digital broadcast, but it only ranges like 15 miles.
4. What the gov't should do, but can't do, is make digital stations broadcast at a decent wattage so consumers will get a multitude of stations instead of like 3. But that's more a result of stations not wanting to upgrade digital broadcasts because the OTA broadcasts are probably a small percentage of people in comparison to cable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2009 @ 8:35am

I support transition to digital for many of the reasons expressed here and on technical sites discussing the pros and cons of digital versus analog. Unfortunatley, I have noted a downside to some digital signals. Analog signals that I previously was able to pick up from local stations do not get through when in digital form. From my experience this is one area that needs further refinement.

Otherwise, I have found that the digital signals I do pick up are superior in quality on the screen than is the case with many analog signals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joel, 27 Jan 2009 @ 9:05am

4G LTE
AT&T and Verizon are the major companies who came out of the 700 mhz auction with a chunk of the spectrum and they are on board with this digital TV delay. They are on board not because people can't get the vouchers from the government but because it makes no business sense to build, test and operate a new network in a recession when the majority of people will not be paying the premium price that the new 4G network will cost when it rolls out. Instead they opted to "look" like they were helping the average American get an extra $40 bucks while at the same time delaying the expense of building the infrastructure of a new network.

Additionally, the $6 billion for broadband that is in the new stimulus is for "open" networks, the sort that Verizon is trying now where the "approved" devices are mostly broadband data cards. When every major provider in the US is offering LTE as the network then "open" won't mean anything anymore and the providers get to walk away with $6 billion that they wouldn't have, except of course Sprint who is sinking faster than a rock in water.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JMB, 27 Jan 2009 @ 9:19am

Once again, we baby folks. If you didn't know there was a switch to DTV happening then you are either dead or living on an island somewhere where you could probably care less about TV (I know I would!!!). Cut the friggin' umbilical and get on with it. There may be 6 million that aren't ready now but do you really think that number will be reduced by June.....No. The same lazy people who have put it off until know are grateful they can put it off until June and then they'll whine and cry they aren't ready in June.

Forget about 'em.....move on. They'll eventually catch up. If they don't, then we've started culling the herd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alex, 27 Jan 2009 @ 9:24am

DTV
As I've said before - The people are as ready as they will ever be.

The technology isn't, but no one will realize that until the change has been forced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Johnny Canada, 27 Jan 2009 @ 9:48am

The major cable companies (Shaw / Rogers) in Canada have been running ads stating in CANADA you have to do nothing if you are watching TV via CABLE.

So if 30 million people in a foriegn country (Canada) know about the U.S. change how can Americans not know or be ready for it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PRMan, 27 Jan 2009 @ 9:53am

I wondered about this...
I wondered about this from the first time I heard about the switch. How could they put the switch in the middle of "sweeps". That is the WORST possible week for TV stations.

Moving the switch to June was done for the sake of the networks and media companies, so that it's right in the middle of reruns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Johnny Canada, 27 Jan 2009 @ 10:36am
  
  Re: I wondered about this...
  Middle of ReRuns
  
  Reruns start the week of your Thanksgiving, for two to three weeks, then again the last week of December to mid January, then again just after Sweeps, and again in April for another two weeks. Then summer until mid October.
  
  I do not know when they have time to show first run TV shows :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous, 27 Jan 2009 @ 10:11am

As I've said before - The people are as ready as they will ever be.

The technology isn't, but no one will realize that until the change has been forced.

Please remove foot from mouth. The technology is ready.
It's been ready for a long, long, long, long (still going...) long, time. Idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BK, 27 Jan 2009 @ 12:31pm

7 million are not yet ready for Digital TV?
They say that delay in switching to digital TV is warranted since 10% of American people are not ready??? May be Mr. Obama should delay becoming a President of this nation for another 4 years since some 27% of Americans are not ready to say good-bye to Bush? I was hoping for evidence of some intelligence, at least at the start of his term!!! Too much to hope for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paul, 27 Jan 2009 @ 1:21pm

Digital TV
I'm so sick of seeing the commercials and news announcements about the switch. They could have spent the advertising money, converting boxes, wasted government time, and purchase everyone a digital tv with a turning in an analog tv. Who still has these old tvs ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2009 @ 1:39pm

Hmmm
I've already started seeing Analog TV transmission equipment being sold in the secondary marketplace in preparation for the switch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Silverwolf, 27 Jan 2009 @ 2:39pm

No One Seems to have noticed
No one seems to have noticed the "fine print" of the bill which says that the TV Broadcasters are free to switch early if they want to.

Really this bill does next to nothing to extend the cut-off date unless the broadcasters just want to continue in analog (which it's my understanding most of them do not).

The only good point of this bill is that households with expired cupons can re-apply for new ones (they could not before)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John, 27 Jan 2009 @ 3:03pm

So much for broadband for everyone...
This pushes back the open whitespace thing right? Doesn't that whitespace have the potential for wide area wireless network/internet access? Couldn't this whitespace help the "broadband for everyone" idea Obama was pushing?

So, why is my local paper claiming that pushing back DTV is a win for Obama? Wouldn't this would hurt his "broadband for everyone" idea.

(disclaimer, I may be totally incorrect on whitespace potential. If I am, I'm wrong. So, don't throw a fit.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Silverwolf, 27 Jan 2009 @ 3:11pm
  
  Re: So much for broadband for everyone...
  I think the whitespace is the area in between other transmissions. I'm pretty sure it doesn't have anything to do with the analog tv cut-off.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_space_(telecommunications)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John, 27 Jan 2009 @ 3:41pm
    
    Re: Re: So much for broadband for everyone...
    Oh. I thought part of the deal with the DTV switch is that there would be less "bleed" into the whitespace. Thereby allowing the whitespace to be used for other stuff.
    
    ...actually, check the wikipedia article. I think it says that under White space devices. ::shrug::
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clueby4, 27 Jan 2009 @ 4:31pm

Public Safety ...please
Public Safety, my your gullible aren't you.

Try FCC revenue, they got their money, so delay or no delay they're happy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MDMHM, 27 Jan 2009 @ 7:45pm

Remember Seniors & Not all areas getting digital signal
Tried to help my 80 yr old grandparents get ready. Got coupon & bought box, hooked up & only able to get PBS, all other channels lost. Store recommended new wire to antenna, no help. Store recommended new HDTV antenna, no help.

All channels but PBS constant pixelate so unwatchable. Out $200 & a day's time. 80 yr old people don't care about high-def. They just want basic TV. They get all the major networks with analog. They will be forced to a cheap cable package or watch PBS only. They said they will stop watching TV in Feb before signing any cable contracts.

Our generation wants clearer pictures & surrond sound. Their generation is concerned with saving money for food, medical, & utilities. Please remember the older generation of Americans that will be left without TV programming. Doesn't sound like much, but when you are unable to drive & seperated from the news of the world, you become isolated & depressed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]