End of Analog TV in the US: Were You Affected?

[JaredJames]

So what are the local stations broadcasting on then? If they aren't broadcasting on sat and not on standard digital transmissions where are they?

In the UK, we have satellite (Sky TV), Cable (Virgin Media) and Freeview (broadcast in replace of analog. When analog shuts down they use the same masts to broadcast a digital signal to replace it. The Freeview digital decoder box let's you watch this digital on your older tv.)

 

[jtbell]

No local stations on sat.

In many areas in the US (not all, yet) the satellite carriers (Dish and DirecTV) do provide local broadcast channels to customers in those areas. At least the major network channels (NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, PBS), probably not the minor networks (CW, MyNetworkTV) or the independent stations.

 

[Borek]

In what way? That it happened?

I suppose what Turbo means is that after the switch he has to invest in much more than just a converter to get access to the same amount of channels that he had before.

 

[Moonbear]

Even with analog TV I had to use a good rooftop antenna with a rotator. I've been using digital TV exclusively for four years, and upgraded my http://web.presby.edu/~jtbell/TV/images/91XG+YA1713b.jpg last year.

So, what you and turbo, collectively, seem to be saying is that just getting a converter box is not sufficient, so even if someone who couldn't afford a convertor box (they cost about $50 each in the US, which is a lot) and did manage to get a coupon for a discounted one before the coupons ran out, you also need to upgrade to a new antenna to receive the digital channels.

This article seems to confirm that a converter box isn't enough. Why didn't anyone tell people they needed a new antenna too?

Need some tips to help a relative or neighbor get their TV switched over to digital? On the converter box remote, click the menu or set-up button, click on scan and then click okay. That should get the converter box programmed for all available digital channels. One thing to keep in mind is that you may need to buy a new antenna to get a clear picture.

http://www.whec.com/news/stories/S976026.shtml?cat=565

And this one as well:

June 12, 2009 5:41 PM PDT
DTV converter boxes aplenty, but good luck finding an antenna
by Marguerite Reardon

NEW YORK--Louise Coleman of Brooklyn, N.Y., did everything she was supposed to do before full-power TV broadcasters in the U.S. turned off their analog TV signals and started broadcasting only in digital, but she still found herself in a Best Buy store on the DTV deadline day, Friday, buying the last amplified digital antenna on the store shelf.

Coleman said she had gotten her $40 coupon from the government and bought a digital converter box for her older analog TV before the first deadline for the switch to digital TV on February 17. And she even bought a new flat screen digital-ready TV for her living room to replace an old analog TV that was on its last legs. So she thought she was prepared.
...

So off she went to Best Buy, to pick up the very last digital TV antenna with a signal amplifier the store had in stock at a cost of $50.

"I was prepared back in February for the switch," she said. "But then when I hooked up the box last night, I realized that I wasn't getting all the channels and that I probably needed a different antenna, so here I am again."

Coleman was not alone. While much of the hoopla around the digital TV transition for the past several months has focused on whether people with older analog TVs had a digital converter box to receive digital signals, a big issue for New Yorkers on Friday when broadcasters flipped the switch to digital was finding an antenna to improve their reception.

But retailers caution consumers that no antenna is a one-size fits all solution, something Richard Savelli, of Manhattan learned the hard way.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10264157-94.html

So, not only do you need to get a new antenna with that converter box, you won't even know until you take it home and try it if you got the right antenna for your area! So, you could be buying anything from another $50 antenna to sit on top of your TV set, to another $100 upgrade for your rooftop antenna.

How were people even supposed to know this? In all the millions of ads run about the conversion and getting a converter box, NOBODY said anything about antennas too, and they also didn't offer any program to help people pay for those upgrades to antennas.

 

[turbo]

In what way? That it happened?

The poor planning included the failure to take terrain into account and the failure to actually test relative signal strength in the normal broadcasting area before making the switch-over. The bands that DTV is carried on are far more directional than the conventional broadcast frequencies and if you don't have a good line-of-sight to the transmitting antenna, you get no signal. Because of terrain variations, I can get signals from a couple of stations about 90 miles away, but not from the stations in Bangor, only about 40 miles distant.

Most of the people that I have spoken to in this area can get no digital TV signal at all, while a few with very tall masts and $$$$ antennas can get one or two stations. The fellow who owned this house previously had a brother who was in the TV antenna installation business so when we bought this place, it came with probably the highest-quality UHF/VHF antenna available. My niece and her husband have a UHF/VHF antenna, but have lost all signal. They considered buying a better antenna, but there is no guarantee that they can get a signal even once that is installed, and Radio Shack won't take back an antenna once it has been mounted, so that would be an expensive gamble.

 

[jtbell]

Exactly how much does a digital decoder box cost over in the US?

The "Coupon Eligible Converter Boxes" (CECBs) that provide only standard-definition analog output and are intended for upgrading old TVs, usually cost $50 to $60. Each household can get up to two coupons from the US governent, each worth $40 towards the purchase of one box.

The coupon program has gotten criticism for somewhat complicated rules that were supposed to prevent profiteers from hoarding coupons and reselling them. For example, they expire 90 days after issuance. The people who applied for coupons at the beginning of the program (January 1, 2008) first had to wait until mid February to get them. At that point there were only one or two models of converter boxes actually available in stores, and some stores had difficulty processing the coupons. And originally there was only a fixed amount of money appropriated for coupons. After that money ran out, people got put on a waiting list, to wait for unused coupons to expire so the money would be freed up again.

In February, when the transition date was pushed back to last Friday, more money was made available to get rid of the backlog in coupon applications.

 

[Moonbear]

I don't see why we should bend over backwards for people living out in the boonies. It's not a major city. It comes with living in the boonies. Don't like it, don't live in the boonies. There are legit reasons for having that spectrum for other more improtant uses.

That's harsh, and a rather ignorant statement. Who do you think provides the food you find in the stores of that big city? People who live in rural areas. There are a lot of rotten things I could say about living in cities, and dealing with people with arrogant attitudes that nobody else matters because they live a different lifestyle is high on that list. Try expanding your horizons and realizing that there is a huge world beyond your own back yard.

What more important uses is that spectrum being used for? If they are so important, and digital is such a wonderful alternative, why couldn't those important uses use the digital spectrum rather than costing people who just want to get the local farm reports so much money to switch?

 

[Hurkyl]

The poor planning included...

Okay, so your local TV stations (seem to have) dropped the ball; that doesn't justify criticizing the transition as a whole.

 

[jtbell]

So, what you and turbo, collectively, seem to be saying is that just getting a converter box is not sufficient, so even if someone who couldn't afford a convertor box (they cost about $50 each in the US, which is a lot) and did manage to get a coupon for a discounted one before the coupons ran out, you also need to upgrade to a new antenna to receive the digital channels.

My old antenna would have been quite sufficient to receive the local digital stations from the city that I'm "supposed" to be able to get them from, the city whose analog stations I'd been watching for many years. If I had just wanted to continue receiving those stations, I wouldn't have upgraded my antenna.

However, when I first tried digital TV, I discovered that I could get several stations from the other two cities, and I got hooked on watching those, too. I visit those cities regularly, so it's nice to watch local news from them, for example. They're a bit further away than my "main" city, so the signals are weaker. I beefed up my antenna setup mainly to improve reception for those "extra" stations.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

My local radio guys are playing this up to be much worse than it is I think. Exagerated for this area anyway since there are so many cities all bunched together I doubt many people in CA will have trouble with this.

They said that apparently so much as a tree in the yard could disrupt a digital broadcast signal? I had trouble believing that.

Some of the people up north and maybe out in the further reaches of our desert regions might have trouble though.

 

[Moonbear]

My old antenna would have been quite sufficient to receive the local digital stations from the city that I'm "supposed" to be able to get them from, the city whose analog stations I'd been watching for many years. If I had just wanted to continue receiving those stations, I wouldn't have upgraded my antenna.

It doesn't sound like that's the case everywhere. From the articles I was located after reading your post, it seems like there are a lot of people who lost stations. It may depend on how powerful a broadcasting area your local station has and what's between you and them. For example, my "local" stations are supposed to be further south in the state. I never got signal from them even before the switch, because the mountains in the middle limit my reception. Instead, I got signal only from the Pittsburgh stations.

Still, this seems like quite a SNAFU that they didn't bother advertising to people that it was going to take more than plugging in a converter box to continue getting the channels you're used to getting. I think people expected to keep getting what they've been getting if they went to the trouble of getting a converter box. This is the first time I'm hearing that needing to get a new antenna might be part of the upgrade expenses. People who thought they had done what they needed to do, and bought their converters are still finding themselves losing stations when they could have planned ahead instead of being part of the mad rush to clean antennas off store shelves this weekend.

 

[JaredJames]

In the UK, standard tv is only 4-5 channels. With digital all we need is a set top box and we get something like 48+ channels. Definitely worth it for us.

 

[Borek]

It comes with living in the boonies. Don't like it, don't live in the boonies.

That's harsh, and a rather ignorant statement.

You seem to be forgetting whom do you quote.

 

[Astronuc]

The poor planning included the failure to take terrain into account and the failure to actually test relative signal strength in the normal broadcasting area before making the switch-over. The bands that DTV is carried on are far more directional than the conventional broadcast frequencies and if you don't have a good line-of-sight to the transmitting antenna, you get no signal. Because of terrain variations, I can get signals from a couple of stations about 90 miles away, but not from the stations in Bangor, only about 40 miles distant.

Most of the people that I have spoken to in this area can get no digital TV signal at all, while a few with very tall masts and $$$$ antennas can get one or two stations. The fellow who owned this house previously had a brother who was in the TV antenna installation business so when we bought this place, it came with probably the highest-quality UHF/VHF antenna available. My niece and her husband have a UHF/VHF antenna, but have lost all signal. They considered buying a better antenna, but there is no guarantee that they can get a signal even once that is installed, and Radio Shack won't take back an antenna once it has been mounted, so that would be an expensive gamble.

Digital broadcast signals degrade with distance and a limited by the terrain. When I was visiting turbo, there were areas where my cell phone could not get a signal, so broadcast DTV is definitely going to be limited.

I would think that local TV stations should remain analog. I can understand the desire/motivation of some in government and business to take the bandwidth and sell it to wireless providers like Verizon.

For the past decade we have been the leading advocate for advanced over-the-air digital television in the United States.

http://www.mstv.org/aboutus.html - these guys think it's a great idea.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

In the UK, standard tv is only 4-5 channels. With digital all we need is a set top box and we get something like 48+ channels. Definitely worth it for us.

And you still use direct current too. Silly people. ;-p

 

[Moonbear]

Digital broadcast signals degrade with distance and a limited by the terrain. When I was visiting turbo, there were areas where my cell phone could not get a signal, so broadcast DTV is definitely going to be limited.

I would think that local TV stations should remain analog. I can understand the desire/motivation of some in government and business to take the bandwidth and sell it to wireless providers like Verizon.

Indeed, I traveled through areas of this state last month, and for two of the three days I was on the road, I didn't have cell phone reception. Not spotty reception, not dropped calls type reception, NO reception, as in signal not found. Now, for some of those areas, I don't know what their TV arrangement is, since they don't have cell phones because there are no cell towers allowed in the radio free zone around the NRAO, so they also might not have TV stations broadcasting into the area either. But in a lot of areas, it simply has to do with terrain. One of the reasons the NRAO is located where it is is because of the mountains there that block radio interference from nearby communities...the more something requires line of sight transmission, the less likely it is to work in mountainous terrain...and that need not have anything to do with how rural an area is either.

 

[JaredJames]

And you still use direct current too. Silly people. ;-p

I hope there was sarcasm there.

Anyhow, it's all down to the size of the country at the end of the day. We only have one time zone you have three which immediately means you have to deal with that issue. You have local and national tv stations, we don't we just have national. Well unless you include the whole regional rubbish (bbc england, bbc wales, bbc scotland, itv wales etc.). These are not alternate channels but during certain times of the day they broadcast different programmes to different parts of the UK by region. Like the news is first national then by region. But it happens on the same channel and people in wales can't watch the news for scotland and so on. The digital switch will give access to all these as separate channels. So to me it's a good thing.

Besides, our 240V setup is safer and more efficient than your 110V.

 

[jtbell]

From the articles I was located after reading your post, it seems like there are a lot of people who lost stations. It may depend on how powerful a broadcasting area your local station has and what's between you and them. For example, my "local" stations are supposed to be further south in the state. I never got signal from them even before the switch, because the mountains in the middle limit my reception. Instead, I got signal only from the Pittsburgh stations.

Another factor is that many people were happy with what some people (like me) would call really crappy reception on their analog stations. Weak analog signals still give you something, even with a "snowy" picture and crackly sound, but weak digital signals below a certain point give you nothing at all. People call this the "cliff effect." This is one reason why many people need to upgrade their antennas.

My wife is like this. Before we got married, she was happy with a small portable TV with rabbit ears that could pick up three of the stations from our "main" city, with a picture that could charitably be described as "recognizable." Here, she's been using a small TV in the breakfast area to watch (actually mainly listen to) the morning news while getting ready for work. It could pick up exactly one channel with its built-in antenna. Last week I finally found a "sweet spot" for a small external antenna that allowed a converter box to pick up exactly one station. It's a different station from the original one, so now she watches ABC's "Good Morning America" instead of the CBS "Early Show", but that's all right with her.

Still, this seems like quite a SNAFU that they didn't bother advertising to people that it was going to take more than plugging in a converter box to continue getting the channels you're used to getting.

I agree with that. I also think that in general, the individual stations should have been much more active a long time ago in promoting the digital channels that they've been operating for years alongside the analog ones. Those channels were pretty much a secret to the general public before the DTV transition publicity campaign really started to ramp up around March of last year. The people who knew about them were mostly geeks like me. I think even during the past year, a lot of people didn't really "get it" that the digital channels were already there and ready to watch. People should have been trying out digital TV early, so they could find out problems, upgrade antennas etc., while they still had the analog channels to fall back on in the meantime.

The stations should have started promoting their digital channels at least three years ago. "Get rid of the snow, ghosts, speckles and herringbone stripes on your picture! Get free HDTV! Get a free 24/7 weather channel!" Etc. Starting last year, stations had a lot of general DTV transition information on their Web sites, but I'm amazed at how many of them didn't have technical information about their digital channels specifically, even something simple like which channel their digital signal is really on! (which is especially important if the analog channel is/was VHF and the digital one is UHF, or the other way around)

And the FCC should have phased in the requirements for TVs to include digital tuners earlier, so more people would become DTV-ready simply by buying new TVs in the normal course of events. My HDTV (a 32" LCD) has only an analog tuner built in because I bought it in fall 2005, and that size set didn't require a digital tuner until March 2006. (It wasn't a problem for me because I'd been experimenting with external digital tuners on my old analog set, so I already had a tuner I could use with the new set.)

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I hope there was sarcasm there.

Yes. That's what the smiley was for. :-)

 

[Cyrus]

That's harsh, and a rather ignorant statement. Who do you think provides the food you find in the stores of that big city? People who live in rural areas. There are a lot of rotten things I could say about living in cities, and dealing with people with arrogant attitudes that nobody else matters because they live a different lifestyle is high on that list. Try expanding your horizons and realizing that there is a huge world beyond your own back yard.

Ok, but that's really not a point because I can sit here and argue who makes sure you get your mail, that you get electrical power, that your food gets shipped out so you can live off
of your farm product? Major distritbution centers in city hubs. We can play this game all day long about who does what and where. They are both important.

What more important uses is that spectrum being used for? If they are so important, and digital is such a wonderful alternative, why couldn't those important uses use the digital spectrum rather than costing people who just want to get the local farm reports so much money to switch?

Can the farm reports not be sent out via the internet or radio? I'm curious as to why some here think having a TV is a necessity of life and not a modern luxury. Do newspapers not exist in that part of the country?

 

[jtbell]

You have local and national tv stations, we don't we just have national.

Actually, almost all broadcast TV stations in the US are "local." They produce their own local news programs etc. and carry advertising for local businesses, in addition to carrying national programs and advertising from one of the networks (NBC, ABC, etc.). A station may be owned by a national or regional chain or even by one of the networks, but it's managed at the local level. And stations owned by the same chain in different cities are often affiliated with different networks, except of course for ones that are actually owned by a network.

In many states, the public broadcasting (PBS) stations are owned and operated by a statewide agency, and the individual stations are basically "repeaters" controlled from a central office. South Carolina is like this. I can get five or six SCETV stations, but the programming is identical on all of them. For some reason they chose to build a lot of lower-powered stations rather than a few high-powered ones in order to cover the entire state.

But there's nothing like this on the national level.

 

[russ_watters]

Can the farm reports not be sent out via the internet or radio? I'm curious as to why some here think having a TV is a necessity of life and not a modern luxury. Do newspapers not exist in that part of the country?

Apparently, TV is as essential to some people as food:

So when people don't have bread, we should tell them to eat cake?

Who do you think provides the food you find in the stores of that big city? People who live in rural areas.

Moonbear, turbo-1, we're talking about *TV* here. TV!

People make choices about living in a city vs a rural area partly because of the availability of such things. Living in a rural area means you don't get good movie theaters nearby, have to drive further to find a Home Depot, and you can't go see a major league baseball game on a Wednesday night after work. Living in a city means you can't use your telescope in your backyard.

These are the types of pros and cons people weigh when choosing where to live. This isn't the rural electrification program and no one is in danger of starving to death over this. It's TV! It is a luxury item! Entertainment. It isn't an entitlement - it isn't a necessity of life.

What has people upset is that the switch to digital tv has made getting that luxury/entertainment item out to rural areas more difficult. They are used to having it, so they have started believing it is an entitlement. But it isn't. It's just a fact of life that sometimes the provider of something decides they can't/don't want to provide it anymore. This is no different than if someone closed a nearby movie theater in a rural area because it was unprofitable.

And might I add: broadcast tv is free! People who lost something only lost something that they were getting for free!

 

[JaredJames]

Actually, almost all broadcast TV stations in the US are "local." They produce their own local news programs etc. and carry advertising for local businesses, in addition to carrying national programs and advertising from one of the networks (NBC, ABC, etc.). A station may be owned by a national or regional chain or even by one of the networks, but it's managed at the local level. And stations owned by the same chain in different cities are often affiliated with different networks, except of course for ones that are actually owned by a network.

In many states, the public broadcasting (PBS) stations are owned and operated by a statewide agency, and the individual stations are basically "repeaters" controlled from a central office. South Carolina is like this. I can get five or six SCETV stations, but the programming is identical on all of them. For some reason they chose to build a lot of lower-powered stations rather than a few high-powered ones in order to cover the entire state.

But there's nothing like this on the national level.

I'd say that's basically what I meant with it, ish. Obviously I didn't think you had national transmitters, but I meant you have national channels/shows and more specific local ones.

 

[russ_watters]

The poor planning included the failure to take terrain into account and the failure to actually test relative signal strength in the normal broadcasting area before making the switch-over.

You're just assuming all that. Maybe they did do all of that testing and just decided that your area wasn't important enough to make it worth their effort to give you better reception. Or even more likely - maybe they were aware of the general issue and decided the issue (serving people in rural areas) wasn't even an important enough concern to make it worth doing the testing.

 

[JaredJames]

And might I add: broadcast tv is free! People who lost something only lost something that they were getting for free!

Wish it was like that in the UK. There are four/five channels on analogue. BBC 1 + 2, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5.

All are free (advertising based) except the BBC ones. We have to pay £140 each year for a tv licence. The only upside of which is that there are no ad breaks and no adverts between shows.

Worst bit is if you have a tv you have to have a license whether you watch the BBC channels or not. When digital comes in, yes we get more channels (especially a whole load more from the bbc) but we still need the licence.

 

[russ_watters]

By the way, what does "local" mean anyway? I don't watch local news, but if I did, I guess a recent murder in Philly would be relevant to me since I'm there a couple of times a week, but even living 20 miles away, a Philly weather report isn't specific enough for my taste. If I lived 40+ miles from my "local" tv station. I couldn't even imagine caring what was on it!

[edit] Possible exception: the Phillies baseball and Flyers hockey. But they have their own network that airs most of their games anyway...on cable.

For weather, the nearest doppler radars are in Philadelphia, but that doesn't mean I need to watch tv to access them. You can watch them in real-time on the internet, so the internet is a much better source for weather information than tv, even if the tv station owns the radar.

 

[JaredJames]

By the way, what does "local" mean anyway? I don't watch local news, but if I did, I guess a recent murder in Philly would be relevant to me since I'm there a couple of times a week, but even living 20 miles away, a Philly weather report isn't specific enough for my taste.

Within a certain region. So perhaps by state or even by large cities / towns.

 

[jtbell]

And of course there's politics. Local and state politics can get interesting at times. In a nearby county, a county councilman recently got into trouble for planting spyware on the county manager's computer, apparently to try to dig up dirt on him in order to get the council as a whole to fire him. The FBI got into the act on this one.

 

[Office_Shredder]

You're just assuming all that. Maybe they did do all of that testing and just decided that your area wasn't important enough to make it worth their effort to give you better reception. Or even more likely - maybe they were aware of the general issue and decided the issue (serving people in rural areas) wasn't even an important enough concern to make it worth doing the testing.

They did a test run on a city in South Carolina (if I remember correctly) and found that the range wasn't what they'd hoped back in November '08 or something. The FCC decided to make distributed transmission systems permissible to recover analog range, but it seems nobody's bothered to do that

 

[russ_watters]

And of course there's politics. Local and state politics can get interesting at times. In a nearby county, a county councilman recently got into trouble for planting spyware on the county manager's computer, apparently to try to dig up dirt on him in order to get the council as a whole to fire him. The FBI got into the act on this one.

Well yeah, the best soap opera around right now is the Philly tv reporter who hacked his co-anchor's email account because he was in lover with her and jealous of her. She's no angel either, getting arrested for assaulting a cop!

But what makes a drama more compelling simply because it happenes 20 miles away instead of 200 miles away? Right now, the most compelling political drama is happening 10,000 miles away from me! To me, the concept of "local" doesn't have a whole lot of meaning.

 

[Evo]

I haven't read the entire thread, did anyone mention that the reason that tv stations were forced to give up their analogue frequencies was a result of lobbying by companies that wanted those frequenicies released so that they could buy it up and the resell it for new "for profit" services? This was not something tv stations wanted to do, they were forced to give up those frequencies by the FCC.

 

[Astronuc]

I haven't read the entire thread, did anyone mention that the reason that tv stations were forced to give up their analogue frequencies was a result of lobbying by companies that wanted those frequenicies released so that they could buy it up and the resell it for new "for profit" services? This was not something tv stations wanted to do, they were forced to give up those frequencies by the FCC.

In post 64, I mentioned these guys - Maximum Service Television.

http://www.mstv.org/aboutus.html

The Association for Maximum Service Television, Inc., is the recognized industry leader in broadcasting technology and spectrum policy issues. Formed in 1956, MSTV has endeavored to ensure that the American public receive the highest quality, interference free, over-the-air local television signals.

Yeah - right.

 

[edward]

One local station, the ABC affiliate, is on the reception fringe. The set top boxes keep losing their digital signal. This requires re- scanning the converter boxes for available stations.

The odd thing is that they are now running mini infomercials on how to rescan the boxes on the cable channels??

 

[Ouabache]

Like a few others mentioned here, I too am unaffected by the switch to digital TV and haven't owned a television that receives broadcast stations for the past 7 years. It isn't necessary. Although the internet has given us much useful content, even without it, AM/FM radio fills in local news coverage.

It may have been desirable from some viewpoints, but to people in rural locations, it seems that we have sacrificed a lot of access to information (weather reports, storm warnings, traffic disruptions) that might have been pretty valuable, but often taken for granted. If you are in the path of a cell of severe thunderstorms, and you can't get local weather reports, that's not good.

Since the advent of AM broadcast radio and due to their use of longer wavelengths, they operate effectively over variable terrain and reach rural areas in the absence of analog television.

Also for emergency weather, a basic VHF scanner can receive NOAA weather transmissions
In http://www.nws.noaa.gov/nwr/stations.php?State=ME there are 11 frequencies to choose from. Across rural America there are comparable broadcast frequencies.

We have already lost local AM/FM radio to the national conglomerates, so that channel of communication is gone.

Rural areas have benefited from AM radio for local news coverage for quite some time. You may want to revisit the list of local AM stations and retest their reception. Stringing up a long wire for an antenna, stunningly increases the gain (reception) for these signals. Since these are rural areas, there is no shortage of space for a long wire antennas.

Here is one list of AM stations in Maine. extracted from this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_radio_stations_in_Maine" . (there are comparable lists for stations across rural America).

 

[turbo]

Do you realize that there are lots of elderly, infirm, shut-ins that rely on broadcast TV for information and entertainment? Often they are living on meager fixed incomes and can't afford satellite or cable TV, if they are even available where they live.

As for the arguments that TV is a luxury and that broadcast TV is "free" I beg to differ. The broadcasters' costs are paid by advertising revenue, and the advertising is eating up about 25% or so of the available air-time, which the viewers "pay for" by watching the ads. The broadcasters were forced to give up their frequencies and buy, install, and maintain new digital equipment so that fat-cats could buy up the band-width and use it to sell services. The public was led by the nose and went along for the ride with the promise of better pictures and audio, when the result for many is NO pictures and NO audio.

 

[Cyrus]

Do you realize that there are lots of elderly, infirm, shut-ins that rely on broadcast TV for information and entertainment? Often they are living on meager fixed incomes and can't afford satellite or cable TV, if they are even available where they live.

As for the arguments that TV is a luxury and that broadcast TV is "free" I beg to differ. The broadcasters' costs are paid by advertising revenue, and the advertising is eating up about 25% or so of the available air-time, which the viewers "pay for" by watching the ads. The broadcasters were forced to give up their frequencies and buy, install, and maintain new digital equipment so that fat-cats could buy up the band-width and use it to sell services. The public was led by the nose and went along for the ride with the promise of better pictures and audio, when the result for many is NO pictures and NO audio.

Wow, you really just tried to rationalize getting free TV by basically saying "well, I watch the Ads, and those Ads bring in money".

Are you up for congressional election in 2010? The spin you just posted is making me dizzy.

Have you considered that you don't "deserve" *any* free tv - whatsoever? For crying out loud, you don't even pay for it!

Also, are the EMTs 'fat cats' wanting to use the bandwidth?

The switch to DTV will offer a host of important public benefits, to include:

Freeing up parts of the broadcast spectrum for public safety communications (police/fire/rescue).
Allowing some of the spectrum to be auctioned to companies that will be able to provide consumers with more advanced wireless services (such as wireless broadband).
Allowing stations to offer improved picture and surround sound (enhanced audio).
Expanding programming choices for viewers. For example, a broadcaster will be able to offer multiple digital programs simultaneously (multicasting).
Providing interactive video and data services that are not possible with analog technology.

 

[JaredJames]

Do you realize that there are lots of elderly, infirm, shut-ins that rely on broadcast TV for information and entertainment? Often they are living on meager fixed incomes and can't afford satellite or cable TV, if they are even available where they live.

As for the arguments that TV is a luxury and that broadcast TV is "free" I beg to differ. The broadcasters' costs are paid by advertising revenue, and the advertising is eating up about 25% or so of the available air-time, which the viewers "pay for" by watching the ads. The broadcasters were forced to give up their frequencies and buy, install, and maintain new digital equipment so that fat-cats could buy up the band-width and use it to sell services. The public was led by the nose and went along for the ride with the promise of better pictures and audio, when the result for many is NO pictures and NO audio.

I'm curious who forces you to watch these ads? I for one channel hop or go get a drink or something. As I said before, here in Britain we HAVE to pay for a tv license each year whether we like it or not. You do not. You cannot make out that you losing something which is free to begin with is unfair. Again, no one forced these people to live in these areas, they are/were free to move whenever they liked. They made a choice to stay there knowing full well what the situation was.

 

[turbo]

Mainers live here primarily because we were born here and made livings for ourselves here. It was not a conscious decision "I have to move to Maine" for most of us. Maine was the lumber capitol of the US for many, many years, and we still supply lots of maple syrup, potatoes, blueberries, salmon, groundfish, lobsters, etc that people in urban areas come to rely on when they go to their stores. Urban populations cannot possibly live without rural populations to supply their food-stuffs. There is no way that DC, NYC, Philly, etc could sustain any but a tiny portion of their populations without people in rural US catching their fish, raising their cattle, growing their vegetables, etc.

Again, if you think broadcast TV is "free" then you don't understand the dynamics of ad revenue. Ads pay for eyeballs, and you don't have to do too much research to find studies that explain this in detail. The claim that broadcast TV is "free" and that we in rural areas have no reason to object if it is suddenly removed by FCC action is not only simplistic - it is dead-wrong. Whole industries were built on TV advertising, and you shouldn't have to think too long to come up with some examples. I won't bother, since you seem predisposed to ignoring reality.

 

[JaredJames]

Mainers live here primarily because we were born here and made livings for ourselves here. It was not a conscious decision "I have to move to Maine" for most of us. Maine was the lumber capitol of the US for many, many years, and we still supply lots of maple syrup, potatoes, blueberries, salmon, groundfish, lobsters, etc that people in urban areas come to rely on when they go to their stores. Urban populations cannot possibly live without rural populations to supply their food-stuffs. There is no way that DC, NYC, Philly, etc could sustain any but a tiny portion of their populations without people in rural US catching their fish, raising their cattle, growing their vegetables, etc.

Again, if you think broadcast TV is "free" then you don't understand the dynamics of ad revenue. Ads pay for eyeballs, and you don't have to do too much research to find studies that explain this in detail. The claim that broadcast TV is "free" and that we in rural areas have no reason to object if it is suddenly removed by FCC action is not only simplistic - it is dead-wrong. Whole industries were build on TV advertising, and you shouldn't have to think too long to come up with some examples. I won't bother, since you seem predisposed to ignoring reality.

Your lack of evidence and continual stating that you will not provide any makes your claims here worthless. Why is it dead wrong, if its supplied to you free, then it is costing them to broadcast it to you. Given they cannot guarantee anyone watches the adverts it is a hit and miss technique for the companies advertising. Can I assume you have evidence waying up the revenue of adverts with the costs of broadcasting, maintenance etc? So that you can trully way up the losses from these few broadcast areas.
You were born there, and? Nothing stopped you moving away.

 

[turbo]

Your lack of evidence and continual stating that you will not provide any makes your claims here worthless. Why is it dead wrong, if its supplied to you free, then it is costing them to broadcast it to you. Given they cannot guarantee anyone watches the adverts it is a hit and miss technique for the companies advertising. Can I assume you have evidence waying up the revenue of adverts with the costs of broadcasting, maintenance etc? So that you can trully way up the losses from these few broadcast areas.
You were born there, and? Nothing stopped you moving away.

Worthless claims? Man! what claptrap! Broadcast TV has been financed by ad-revenue all my life. Perhaps you haven't noticed that the "free" TV has been paid for by the perceived value that the advertisers paid for to get their ads in front of people. Do you think that Kraft Foods, P&G, Campbells, etc would spend billions to write, produce and air ads if they weren't convinced that the ads make them much more money than they spent? Learn something about advertising before you start throwing around claims that are soundly refuted by decades of the producers "putting their money where their mouth is". Some of the highest-powered people in these consumer-products companies are the folks who run the ad campaigns. That is not a coincidence.

 

[JaredJames]

Worthless claims? Man! what claptrap! Broadcast TV has been financed by ad-revenue all my life. Perhaps you haven't noticed that the "free" TV has been paid for by the perceived value that the advertisers paid for to get their ads in front of people. Do you think that Kraft Foods, P&G, Campbells, etc would spend billions to write, produce and air ads if they weren't convinced that the ads make them much more money than they spent? Learn something about advertising before you start throwing around claims that are soundly refuted by decades of the producers "putting their money where their mouth is". Some of the highest-powered people in these consumer-products companies are the folks who run the ad campaigns. That is not a coincidence.

Did I say the ads don't make money? It's how it works here in the UK and there with you. You are arguing that you DESERVE tv. It is a modern luxury, something people have come to expect. It does not mean they should get it. Yes the ads pay for it, but that does not mean you have to get it. Show me where it says the advert money has to pay for everyone to get tv/to see the ads.

 

[Phrak]

I haven't read the entire thread, did anyone mention that the reason that tv stations were forced to give up their analogue frequencies was a result of lobbying by companies that wanted those frequenicies released so that they could buy it up and the resell it for new "for profit" services? This was not something tv stations wanted to do, they were forced to give up those frequencies by the FCC.

I hadn't heard of any opposition by the broadcast stations to this change, and they own the grievances pulpit. They come out, in general, head with HDTV capability. A short search of the web hasn't revealed any objections. Do you know something I don't know?

 

[turbo]

I hadn't heard of any opposition by the broadcast stations to this change, and they own the grievances pulpit. They come out, in general, head with HDTV capability. A short search of the web hasn't revealed any objections. Do you know something I don't know?

The broadcast stations in this area tried to comply as well as they could, and one of them spent the extra money to provide parallel analog service all winter and into the spring, in the interests of public safety, before they were forced to abandon the frequencies that they broadcast analog signals over. Evo can explain the dynamics nationally (and within the industry, which she works in). I can only comment on what I know, which is that local TV stations were forced to move to new frequencies and adopt digital technologies, and people (sometimes not too far from the trqansmitters) ended up with no TV at all. It's a bit disconcerting when we had an analog system that had been working for the last 50+ years here, financed by ad-revenue, and suddenly the FCC steps in and absconds with that bandwidth and forces TV signals into a frequency-range that is highly directional, leaving many people with NO TV.

 

[Evo]

I hadn't heard of any opposition by the broadcast stations to this change, and they own the grievances pulpit. They come out, in general, head with HDTV capability. A short search of the web hasn't revealed any objections. Do you know something I don't know?

Apparently I do.

I work in telecom, for one of the giants, I have since the late 70's. I happen to have been following this for years.

Do you know one of the main culprits in this is Google because they wanted to go into the cell phone business, but they needed the bandwidth? Companies are alloted ranges, they needed a range. They spent millions lobbying for this. This is all backed by greed and lots of gullible stupid people that are clueless about telecom thinking this was going to mean universal service options. This is of zero benefit to local affiliate stations.

There was no need to take away all of the analogue frequencies. Big greedy companies wanted to be able to bid on and snap up these frequencies. It's a bit disgusting and a loss for the consumer.

 

[JaredJames]

Apparently I do.

I work in telecom, for one of the giants, I have since the late 70's. I happen to have been following this for years.

Do you know one of the main culprits in this is Google because they wanted to go into the cell phone business, but they needed the bandwidth? Comnpanies are alloted ranges, they needed a range. They spent millions lobbying for this. This is all backed by greed and lots of gullible stupid people that are clueless about telecom thinking this it was going to mean universal service options. This is of zero benefit to local affiliate stations.

There was no need to take away all of the analogue frequencies. Big greedy companies wanted to be able to bid on and snap up these frequencies. It's a bit disgusting and a loss for the consumer.

So do you see any upside for the consumer?

 

[Evo]

So do you see any upside for the consumer?

Not unless you consider more companies selling more expensive services is a benefit. I guess if you can afford it, more is better.

 

[Integral]

... Maine was the lumber capitol of the US for many, many years, ...

LOL, I am sorry I just had to laugh at that statement. But then I am from the PNW, we are now just logging sticks here, but our current sticks still are bigger then anything ever logged out of Maine. All Maine sticks are good for is 2 2x4s or pulp.

When was Maine the timber capitol of the US, 1820?

 

[Moonbear]

Apparently, TV is as essential to some people as food: Moonbear, turbo-1, we're talking about *TV* here. TV!

We're talking the local stations that provide weather and emergency reports. Nobody is asking for the 500 channels you can get with cable TV, they're asking to keep their 3 or 4 stations that tell them if it's going to rain and how much to decide if they should plow the fields that week, or plant the corn, or move the cattle to higher ground, or if there's going to be a frost after the planting season has begun. They are people living in areas where there is no cable TV. Before people jump in and say they can just get their news and weather reports from the internet, stop and THINK about where these people live. Many people in those very rural areas do not have internet, or if they do, it's slow dialup, or expensive satellite (many can't afford it). There are no cable lines out there to provide cable TV or cable internet, and they are too far spread apart to get DSL. These are areas without cell phone service as well. And, that's because they live in the areas where the next nearest neighbor is a mile down the road on the next farm.

They aren't going to just run down to the nearest Blockbuster to rent a movie for entertainment either, because the nearest video rental could very well be an hour away, in the town where they also buy their groceries once a month, pick up other supplies, see their doctor and dentist, or get their hair cut.

And, indeed, many people really haven't chosen to live there. They were born there, their whole family lives there, and the only way they know how to make a living is farming. The idea of moving to a suburb or city, even for the ones who might want to leave, isn't usually an option, because they simply can't afford it.

It's the information they get from TV that's important, not the entertainment. You've probably never turned on your TV in the city and heard a farm report, because your local stations aren't going to broadcast it...people in the city don't need a farm report. But, when you get out into rural areas, that is broadcast on the local stations. Weather, crop forecasts, crop pricing, etc. These things are essential for these people to get their crops in on time, harvested at the right time, off to market at a time when they can make a profit, all so they can afford to keep on growing the food you need.

 

[Ouabache]

Do you realize that there are lots of elderly, infirm, shut-ins that rely on broadcast TV for information and entertainment? Often they are living on meager fixed incomes and can't afford satellite or cable TV, if they are even available where they live.

For humanitarian reasons, I sincerely hope these elderly, infirm and shut-ins; are not living in remote rural areas. They would have more basic concerns ahead of news & entertainment, such as obtaining food, medical supplies & services.

So assuming most of the elderly, infirm and shut-ins are close to town; they may get a converter box or a digital TV to watch television. For entertainment, the elderly may join a senior's group. They may invite neighbors over, tell stories, make some music (here's a couple of folks having fun http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwaOqEQApZM"). They send out shuttles to bring these folks to social events, meal sites, etc. For local news, an AM receiver does a nice job.

It's the information they get from TV that's important, not the entertainment. You've probably never turned on your TV in the city and heard a farm report, because your local stations aren't going to broadcast it...people in the city don't need a farm report. But, when you get out into rural areas, that is broadcast on the local stations. Weather, crop forecasts, crop pricing, etc. These things are essential for these people to get their crops in on time, harvested at the right time, off to market at a time when they can make a profit, all so they can afford to keep on growing the food you need.

Having enjoyed living in rural America for five years, I noticed TV wasn't essential. For detailed weather information, NOAA transmits on VHF, and can be heard on scanners and weather radios (e.g. weather frequencies for http://www.nws.noaa.gov/nwr/stations.php?State=WV" ) They listen to all the farming news on the radio (even out in the barn, while milking cows, ...Moooo )..

 

[russ_watters]

We're talking the local stations that provide weather and emergency reports.

Sorry, that's just plain not a good enough reason. Heck, TV isn't even the best medium for an emergency weather report: radio is. Anyone who lives in a disaster prone area should have a battery - or better yet, hand crank - operated weather radio. That's a federally funded service that exists specifically for that purpose.

Nobody is asking for the 500 channels you can get with cable TV, they're asking to keep their 3 or 4 stations that tell them if it's going to rain and how much to decide if they should plow the fields that week, or plant the corn, or move the cattle to higher ground, or if there's going to be a frost after the planting season has begun.

My grandfather had a battery operated weather radio sitting on his kitchen table for decades precisely that purpose. Today, a computer is better for that, but he never really got into computers. Either way, you don't need a tv for it. About the only thing he ever watched on TV was Phillies games.

More importantly, I can't see forcing tv stations to cater to such a tiny fraction of the population.