FCC Says Not So Fast To TV Stations' Itchy Switch Fingers

from the not-completely-surprising dept

The digital TV transition mess rolls on. After lots of TV stations said they planned to move ahead with the shutdown of their analog broadcasts, as the recently passed delay allows them to do, the FCC is now telling more than a quarter of them they can't do so without first meeting a number of regulations. The FCC contends (PDF alert, thanks to Fat Tony for sending it in) that 123 stations' plans to switch their analog signals off soon pose "a significant risk of substantial public harm," not because people who haven't figured out the switch was coming will miss Judge Judy and Wheel of Fortune, but because they need their TVs for access to "local news and public affairs."

The regulations say that one station in the broadcasters' metro areas must maintain analog service until at least the middle of April, but also that the stations must increase their "educational" programming about the switchover, and also provide both "local or toll-free telephone assistance, including engineering support" and "provide a location and staff for a consumer 'walk-in' center to assist consumers with applying for coupons and obtaining converter boxes, to demonstrate how to install converter boxes, to provide maps and lists of communities that maybe affected by coverage issues, and to serve as a redistribution point for consumers who are willing to donate coupons, converter boxes, televisions and for those in need of these items."

If this didn't involve the government, it would almost be remarkable. The government botched the converter coupon program, has caused more confusion with the delay, and now wants TV stations to set up call centers and walk-in locations to deal with it. What's even more galling is that stations will be forced to toss resources at an issue that effects a small sliver of the population: take the small subset of Americans that watch TV, but don't have cable or satellite, then the subset of those that haven't yet gotten with the program. From those few people that are left standing, will they be any more ready in June than they would be on the 17th, when the switchover was supposed to happen? And why should broadcasters have to devote so many resources to them, particularly when it's the bungled coupon program that's largely to blame?

Filed Under: confusion, digital tv, fcc
Companies: fcc

TV Stations Say Thanks, But No Thanks To Analog Switch Delay

from the anarchy-on-the-airwaves! dept

As was widely expected, Congress voted last week to delay the switch-off of analog TV signals, sort of. It did move the hard deadline of February 17 until June 12, but it is also allowing TV stations to switch off their analog broadcasts any time before then, and many stations say they'll do so as soon as they can, beginning next week. Over a third of the nation's TV stations plan to move ahead with the switch, as planned, eager to shed the additional cost of broadcasting both in digital and in analog. So instead of a hard deadline, some stations will drop off of the analog air next week, others not until June, and others somewhere in between -- a situation that hardly seems easier to understand for the confused and lost among us that the delay was supposed to help. Furthermore, how does this sort of staggered transition help sort out the converter box coupon mess?

Filed Under: confusion, congress, delay, digital tv

Consumers Union Wants Congress To Delay Digital TV Transition

from the oh-please,-just-get-it-over-with dept

Now, we all agree that the FCC has screwed up the conversion to digital TV for over-the-air TV watchers, especially with the "coupon" program running out of money. But, it's still pretty ridiculous for Consumers Union to ask Congress to delay the transition (found via Consumers Unions' newly owned Consumerist).

The transition to digital TV has been delayed for years. It was amazing that we finally got a hard deadline of February 2009 given how many forces were fighting against it. Part of the problem was always some ridiculous sliding scale of when we'd be "ready." But, a hard deadline was set, and now it's important to just get it over with. The end result will be much better for consumers, because the old spectrum will finally be put to good use where it can provide an awful lot of value. Yes, the transition coupon program has been poorly run. Yes, it would be better if we figured out a better way (even now) to get converter boxes to people. Yes, there are still a number of people who haven't gone out and picked up a convertor box. Yes, there will be some confused people who turn on their TV and discover it won't work, but it's a very small number of people at this point, and given how much time they've had to deal with it, having their TVs not work should be the final kick in the pants to move forward. There's simply no good reason to delay the transition yet again. Update: Unfortunately, it looks like the incoming Obama administration supports a delay as well.

Filed Under: confusion, conversion coupons, digital tv
Companies: consumers union

Trying To Figure Out How DTV Conversion Program Could Run Out Of Coupons

from the something-doesn't-make-sense dept

There are plenty of reports going around about how the federal government's program to supply coupons for TV digital converter boxes has run out of money while plenty of folks who need them still haven't converted (meaning their TVs won't work next month). Because there's still some confusion about this, it bears repeating: this conversion does not matter in the slightest for anyone who uses cable or satellite TV. It only impacts those who just get over-the-air TV through an antenna. Yet apparently, somewhere around 7% of those people aren't yet prepared for the changeover -- though, assuming they care (i.e., they watch TV) they'll figure out what went wrong pretty soon.

What I'm still trying to figure out, though, is how the program ran out of money. The setup of the program now seems pretty silly. Basically, the feds offered coupons to people to use when buying the boxes, and the feds funded the difference. But why didn't the feds just buy the boxes itself and sell them off at a discount? Part of the problem now is that many of the coupons haven't been redeemed, and no one's sure if they will be redeemed or not -- leaving the amount of money available in question. It seems like there are about 30 different ways that uncertainty could have been averted, such as by just having the sellers report the sales to the Feds and get the "coupon fee" directly. Either way, it seems like yet another program where the FCC didn't do a very good job planning out how this transition would work.

Filed Under: confusion, conversion coupons, digital tv

Digital TV Switchover Looking Like Massive Confusion-Generation Plan

from the rabbit-ears dept

The switchover from analog to digital broadcast TV signals, on tap for February, has been publicized for some time and the necessary converter boxes for older TVs have been made available relatively easily and cheaply. But concerns that the FCC wouldn't be able to manage the transition are looking well-founded. After an earlier test in Wilmington, N.C., that threw off warning signs about the nationwide reaction to the switch, further tests are being carried out across the country, in hopes that the tests will give people an idea if their DTV gear is working, or reinforce to the estimated 19 million Americans who need the converters that the deadline is coming. But the tests themselves are causing plenty of confusion: one writer notes that the test in her area generated both passing and failure messages on different channels, suggesting a problem with the stations, rather than her equipment. The failure messages came despite the TV getting its signal from DirecTV, when the FCC's been saying all along that people connected to cable or satellite don't need to do anything. Again, just an estimated 19 million Americans still get their TV directly from the over-the-air broadcast signals, so a fairly small chunk of the population should be affected by the switchover. But you get the feeling the FCC's feeble education campaign won't prevent confusion for many, many more.

Filed Under: confusion, digital tv
Companies: fcc

Cable Companies Hold Off On Digital Conversion To Avoid Confusion (And Potential Lawsuits)

from the makes-sense dept

There's tremendous confusion out there about February's required switch for broadcast TV from analog to digital. For example, an awful lot of people who have cable or satellite TV don't realize that this conversion basically has no impact on them. It's only for over-the-air TV (you know, the kind you used rabbit ear antennas for). Many assume, incorrectly, that it has something to do with cable TV's "digital TV" or (even less related) needing to get HDTV. Digital TV and HDTV are two separate things. Yet, there has been some accusations that cable companies are taking advantage of this confusion to get people to upgrade, even if they don't need to. In response to such criticism, cable TV operators have now all agreed to put their own digital conversion plans on hold until after the over-the-air conversion is complete, to avoid "complexity." It might also help them avoid lawsuits for misleading consumers...

Filed Under: cable companies, confusion, digital tv

European Court Notes That Using A Competitor's Trademark In An Ad Is Not Trademark Infringement

from the moron-in-a-hurry-goes-to-europe dept

We've said it probably 100 times, but trademark was never designed to be about "ownership." Rather, it's always been about consumer protection from fraud: making sure that you didn't buy one product, believing it was made by someone else. Yet, unfortunately, trademark is often lumped into the category of "intellectual property" with patents and copyright, and that falsely leads people to believe that trademarks are about ownership and, with it, full control over the mark. That leads to some really questionable situations, where companies overreach in trying to block others from using their mark. Luckily, some courts are pushing back on this. Steven Hoy writes in to let us know that a European court has ruled that there's absolutely nothing wrong with a company using a competitor's trademark in an advertisement for comparative purposes, just so long as there's no confusion on the part of the customer. This is exactly the way it should be. Hopefully, we'll start seeing European courts use the good old "moron in a hurry" test more frequently. After all, that "moron in a hurry" trademark test was a European invention in the first place.

Filed Under: competition, confusion, moron in a hurry, trademark, uk
Companies: hutchison 3g, o2

Even Lawyers Are Confused About What's Legal Or Not In The Prince/Radiohead Spat

from the wait-a-second... dept

We were just discussing how copyright has been stretched and twisted so many times that it really just isn't designed properly to handle internet communications -- and a good case in point may be the funny little spat we covered a few weeks back between Prince and Radiohead. If you don't recall, Prince performed a cover of a Radiohead song at a concert. Someone in the audience videotaped it and put the video on YouTube. Prince's representatives demanded that the content be taken down under a DMCA request -- raising all sorts of questions. After all, Prince didn't own the copyright on the song. That's owned by Radiohead, whose lead singer wanted the video back online. Prince didn't own the copyright to the video either, since he didn't take it. So how could he use the DMCA to take down the video?

But, it's not that simple, apparently. As Ethan Ackerman details, as lawyers began to think about the situation, the more confused they got, noting that maybe there was a right under anti-bootlegging laws. Only, then things got more confusing, because it turns out that anti-bootlegging laws aren't actually a part of the copyright act (though it does fall under the same "title" just to add to the confusion), and the DMCA (under which the takedown occurred) only applies to copyright law.

However, again, we're left in a situation where the "law" is hardly clear at all, and even those who follow the space were somewhat confused over whether or not Prince had any sort of legal standing here. A law is not useful if the boundaries of that law are not clear, and if someone has no clue if their actions go against the law. In the internet era, copyright certainly falls under that category of laws in which it is no longer clear what is and is not legal -- and that should be seen as a problem.

Filed Under: confusion, copyright, prince, radiohead

How The Digital TV Transition Will Accidentally Help HDTV Sales

from the customer-confusion dept

There's been a huge amount of confusion concerning the February 2009 transition from analog over-the-air TV to digital over-the-air TV, but one of the big points of confusion is the false assumption by many that this has something to do with HDTV. It doesn't. It's just about the television content that's available freely over the air -- as opposed to via cable or satellite TV. For anyone who is a subscriber to cable or satellite (i.e., the majority of Americans) the transition basically means nothing. Yet, thanks to years of FUD from folks resisting the transition (mainly the TV broadcasters who wanted to keep their spectrum) many people are quite confused about what this means. Some new studies have looked at public readiness for the switch, and while most of the headlines focus on the fact that about half of those impacted are unready for the shift, what may be much more interesting is a tidbit not found in most of the coverage, but tucked into the Washington Post coverage:

About 30 percent of the respondents indicated they had plans to ready themselves for the transition, even though they do not have to do anything to maintain service.

In other words, an awful lot of people who already have a digitally enabled TV, cable service or satellite service somehow think they need to upgrade to keep service after February. Obviously, they're confused, and it would be a good guess to assume the root of at least a significant percentage of that confusion is that idea that this has something to do with HDTV. So, it sounds like a large group of cable or satellite TV subscribers are planning to upgrade to HDTV, not because they want to, but because they incorrectly think they need to to keep getting TV after February of next year. HDTV providers must be thrilled.

As for the percentage of folks who will be impacted and haven't done anything about it yet, that doesn't seem too troublesome. After all, there's still seven or eight months to get it done, and people sure do like to procrastinate. What's more troubling, perhaps, is the fact that the $40 coupons for converter boxes that are being sent out to those who request them expire after 90 days. Why? No one seems to have any clue, and its leading to many of these coupons expiring before people have a chance to redeem them.

Filed Under: confusion, digital tv, fcc, hdtv, spectrum

PlaysForWhatNow? Microsoft 'ReBrands' Misnamed DRM

from the confused-for-sure dept

Sometimes you wonder if Microsoft is just messing around with people for the hell of it. Remember Microsoft's fairly useless DRM offering called PlaysForSure? The one that was (like pretty much all DRM systems) easily hacked? The one that was used to convince a bunch of partners to sign up as Microsoft partners? The one that Microsoft itself then ditched itself when launching the Zune, abandoning all of the partners who could only laugh at the irony of Microsoft devices not playing content using Microsoft's own "PlaysForSure" system? Well, Microsoft has decided that perhaps it was time to change the name of PlaysForSure. Given how inaccurate the name is, perhaps that makes sense -- though, not nearly as much sense as just letting the damn thing die. However, even in changing the name it appears Microsoft has bungled the situation. The new name is "Certified for Windows Vista" which (oops) just so happens to be the same classification used for the Zune and its content... yet, as just noted, PlaysForSure content doesn't work on the Zune. Confusing enough for you? To recap: we've got DRM from Microsoft called PlaysForSure that surely doesn't play on Microsoft's own Zune player -- so Microsoft changes the name to "Certified for Windows Vista" using the same logo as found on the Zune, even though the content still won't play on the Zune. And the company thinks this isn't going to confuse and upset even more people?

Filed Under: confusion, drm, playsforsure, zune
Companies: microsoft