# White House: No TV In 2009? Too Bad



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

The Bush administration has no backup plan if (when) millions of households lose their
over-the-air TV signals during the transition to Digital TV in February, 2009.



> By Phillip Swann, President, TVPredictions
> 
> On February 17, 2009, millions of Americans could lose their TV signals when the
> nation switches from analog to Digital TV. However, the White House's top official
> ...


Ed. Note: Interestingly, President Bush leaves office on January 20, 2009, just 29 days
before the analog-to-digital switch will be thrown.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

They aren't going to be around in 2009 anyway, unless they re-amend the constitution to allow more than two terms.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Perhaps that was the point of the article -- read my note.


----------



## La Push Commercial Codman (Jan 5, 2007)

Broadcasters elected to switch to digital, meaning buckle up folks, were going digital hi def.


----------



## Cholly (Mar 22, 2004)

La Push Commercial Codman said:


> Broadcasters elected to switch to digital, meaning buckle up folks, were going digital hi def.


I'm sure there are a LOT of broadcasters who didn't _elect_ to go digital. Digital transition is an edict. And, by the way, there will probably be quite a few who don't elect to go high def.

Interestingly, every year, about 20% of the general public replace a TV. Since last year, all TV's 27" and larger must have digital tuners. By 2009, all TV's sold must have digital tuners.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Nick said:


> The Bush administration has no backup plan if (when) millions of households lose their
> over-the-air TV signals during the transition to Digital TV in February, 2009.


Why is it the White House's responsibility? Does the Democrat controlled congress have a plan?

Looks like a political message from Mr Swann, and you know how much we like political messages around here.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

If the government provides anything for the transition, I am going to puke. Last I checked 'using tax dollars to provide antennas and converters' is not in the Constitution.


----------



## JM Anthony (Nov 16, 2003)

Steve Mehs said:


> If the government provides anything for the transition, I am going to puke. Last I checked 'using tax dollars to provide antennas and converters' is not in the Constitution.


Amen!! Tough to understand the rationale behind something like that.

John


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

The public airwaves are supposed to be owned by all of us. Through the government, we license over-the-air broadcasters to serve us.

Now we, through the government, are moving to digital television. And we're planning to sell off the reclaimed analog frequency bandwidth to reap a nice windfall. Both of these are pretty good things. But they have the side-effect that viewers who rely on over-the-air TV with say, two-year-old sets will find that they can't watch them without help.

Consider a working single mother who, barely scraping by, wisely avoids spending money on cable or satellite TV. Her children watch PBS educational programming, which helps them learn to read sooner, and when she gets a spare hour to herself, she unwinds with a sitcom or "24". Are you really unwilling to reserve part of the windfall we'll get from the bandwidth spectrum sale to use it to help someone like this buy a converter box?


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

TV is a luxury not a right, I don't give a damn what your situation is, tax dollars or any government money should not be spent on this. If you’re that bad off why even have a TV in the house? If local stations want to pass out free pairs of rabbit ears or whatever fine, but keep government dollars out of it.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I am against the government handing out digital receivers too. Think about it.

How can you afford a TV today? How are you getting analog today? Who bought your antenna?

For people not on cable or satellite.... who somehow managed to get a TV, antenna, and hook it up... then they can get a digital receiver too. By the time the cutoff happens these digital receivers will be pretty cheap.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

While I disagree with spending tax dollars on converters, there is an argument. It goes like this:

The Government set the playing field with the analog spectrum. We all played by those rules. At no point did they say they were going to change the rules. Color TV, Stereo sound - these additions did not make existing sets go black.

Now the Government is changing the rules and is doing the moral equivalent of condemning property by making broadcasters switch to digital and turning the property of U.S. citizens into paperweights.

At least, if I were making that argument, that's how I would frame it.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

> By the time the cutoff happens these digital receivers will be pretty cheap.


Bingo. If you need one, buy one.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

How many times has the "cut-off" been extended?

And why, given today's technology.... are set top converter boxes... still $150+ and I can only find 1 at my local electronic stores.

I mean... RF converters are what $10 tops? 
What is the cost for a basic ATSC tuner?
What is the cost for a down converter for resolution?

So why do these converter boxes cost $150?

I can't see any reason why they are not sub $50... if not even lower.
Heck... looking at it one way... This is "upgrading" their TV service, as they will now have access to all the sub-channels as well...

Kinda like going to basic cable.

I wanted to get a small TV, with ATSC tunning for my in-laws store.
Why? Since here in chicago, all the channels are UHF accept CBS...

They would get significantly better reception with ATSC then NTSC..
But none of the TV's sub 19" where ATSC ready... and the cost of the converter was more then the TV.

So basically some company out there... is going to have to make a box... price it so they make $1 or $2 on the sale.

And put them in Target, Walmart, Safeway, Home Depot, ..... everywhere... right next to the TV Guide..............

Get the converters down to sub $25... and really, the issue should resolve it self... as even at those prices... a lot of these publicly/privately funded support groups for people on fixed incomes could supply the devices to those familys that just can't afford it.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I bought the Accurian one that Radio Shack was selling on clearance about a year ago for $89 and it works really well. I would expect lots of $50 or less standalone boxes by the time the cutoff really happens, assuming it doesn't get pushed into the future again.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Earl Bonovich said:


> So why do these converter boxes cost $150?


How many are being sold? I'd bet that nearly everyone with an ATSC tuner either has that built in to their satellite receiver or television set (not a separate unit sold for $150) or purchased it as part of their HDTV purchase (perhaps even at a bundled price).

Stand alone converters will be sold for less than $150 when there are more stand alone converters being sold -- I'm not sure which is the chicken and which is the egg.


Earl Bonovich said:


> Get the converters down to sub $25... and really, the issue should resolve it self... as even at those prices... a lot of these publicly/privately funded support groups for people on fixed incomes could supply the devices to those familys that just can't afford it.


What we need is an entrepreneur who will go forth and build a cheap NTSC RF/composite output converter box ... no bells and whistles ... and market it. The trouble with those $150 converters is that one is paying two premiums: 1) parts in the box that the base consumer does not need (HDTV outputs) and 2) buying a limited demand product.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

At CES, I sniffed around the "ghettos" of international vendors as I looked for FTA stuff. These were expanses of small, typically unadorned booths, each section for a particular originating country, and all tucked away in little-traveled areas of the show.

Anyway, the good news is that everybody and his brother had a ATSC converter box to show off, most of them already available for purchase. If and when these make their way to US distributors, you might start seeing them show up in unlikely markets catering to low-income buyers (Family Dollar, flea markets), or one or two of them might get cleaned up enough to land on Wal-Mart's shelves. In any case, the prices ought to come down soon, I hope.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Steve Mehs said:


> TV is a luxury not a right, I don't give a damn what your situation is, tax dollars or any government money should not be spent on this. If you're that bad off why even have a TV in the house? If local stations want to pass out free pairs of rabbit ears or whatever fine, but keep government dollars out of it.


TV stations passing out rabbit ear antennas will not help anyone without a digital receiver.


----------



## Car1181 (Mar 30, 2006)

djlong said:


> While I disagree with spending tax dollars on converters, there is an argument. It goes like this:
> 
> The Government set the playing field with the analog spectrum. We all played by those rules. At no point did they say they were going to change the rules. Color TV, Stereo sound - these additions did not make existing sets go black.
> 
> ...


Yes there was a point they said they were going to change the rules. It was in 97 or 98 giving everyone about a 12 year window to buy a new TV or save for a converter box. But some prefer to wait till 2009 and cry that our tax dollars should pay for their coverter box. Give me a break.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

HDMe said:


> I bought the Accurian one that Radio Shack was selling on clearance about a year ago for $89 and it works really well. I would expect lots of $50 or less standalone boxes by the time the cutoff really happens, assuming it doesn't get pushed into the future again.


I bought it as well. But as you point out that was a clearance price its original list price was much higher.


----------



## Dave (Jan 29, 2003)

Do not blame the public for not buying a new TV set. If you had spent $ 500 for a new 32" or more for a larger set just 3 years ago that did not have the new tuners installed, would you just throw it out or request the government give you a new converter box for free? The manufacturers didn't decide until after all the TV stations had finished there complaining and griping about the cost and getting the Government to keep postponing the switch over to incorperate the new tuners in the TV's. This is not the fault of the consumer. Congress has guaranteed free air ways. Which means you do not have to pay for over the air channels being transmitted from the towers. Since congress wants the Analog Airways back, because they can resell them and make (BILLIONS) of dollars. Then they should help the consumer to receive free TV stations over the Airways. If that means they need to (GIVE) consumers a free converter box, SO BE IT.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Ok... TV is a luxury. Is the government providing free radios today? How about free telephones? Why should the government provide free digital converter boxes?


----------



## John W (Dec 20, 2005)

Dave said:


> Do not blame the public for not buying a new TV set. If you had spent $ 500 for a new 32" or more for a larger set just 3 years ago that did not have the new tuners installed, would you just throw it out or request the government give you a new converter box for free? The manufacturers didn't decide until after all the TV stations had finished there complaining and griping about the cost and getting the Government to keep postponing the switch over to incorperate the new tuners in the TV's. This is not the fault of the consumer. Congress has guaranteed free air ways. Which means you do not have to pay for over the air channels being transmitted from the towers. Since congress wants the Analog Airways back, because they can resell them and make (BILLIONS) of dollars. Then they should help the consumer to receive free TV stations over the Airways. If that means they need to (GIVE) consumers a free converter box, SO BE IT.


A free converter in every pot, I say!!!


----------



## Car1181 (Mar 30, 2006)

Dave said:


> Do not blame the public for not buying a new TV set. If you had spent $ 500 for a new 32" or more for a larger set just 3 years ago that did not have the new tuners installed, would you just throw it out or request the government give you a new converter box for free? The manufacturers didn't decide until after all the TV stations had finished there complaining and griping about the cost and getting the Government to keep postponing the switch over to incorperate the new tuners in the TV's. This is not the fault of the consumer. Congress has guaranteed free air ways. Which means you do not have to pay for over the air channels being transmitted from the towers. Since congress wants the Analog Airways back, because they can resell them and make (BILLIONS) of dollars. Then they should help the consumer to receive free TV stations over the Airways. If that means they need to (GIVE) consumers a free converter box, SO BE IT.


I will blame the guy that bought a TV 3 years ago because, unless he was living under a rock, he should have known all signals were going digital within a few years. This info was out there ten years ago. It was debated in public before it became official. And if he's investing $500.00 in a new tv he should do a little homework first.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Car1181 said:


> I will blame the guy that bought a TV 3 years ago because, unless he was living under a rock, he should have known all signals were going digital within a few years. This info was out there ten years ago. It was debated in public before it became official. And if he's investing $500.00 in a new tv he should do a little homework first.


I promised myself that I would not buy another TV without an ATSC tuner when I first heard about digital transition about 10 years ago. I couldn't keep that promise because until recently ATSC tuners were only available in very expensive HD sets. The standard SD set just didn't have the tuner.

So that guy wasn't under the rock, he was between the rock and a hard place. His choice was to buy an NTSC only set that would need a converter in five years (from date of purchase) or pay perhaps a thousand more for a HD set (remember Jan 2004 prices?).

When I got my HD set in 2005 it came without an ATSC tuner. It is only an HDReady set (HD works great via component and HDMI). So I still don't have a single TV in my house with an ATSC tuner.

Find the cheapest TV with an ATSC tuner ... that is what you are asking the guy to buy. It is probably a lot more than the comparable size SD TV or the actual TV the guy wants to buy. Not everyone can afford to swap out all of their TVs - or buy into the HD level when doing the usual trade out- that is where cheap converter boxes come in handy.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

In my recent trips to Best Buy...

It is hard to find a small TV (sub-20") that HAS an ATSC... even if you wanted to pay the premium for it.

You had to get up to at least a 26" LCD type TV... and then you where crossing into the above $500 mark.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

It's a government conspiracy to get more taxpayers.Because when the TV goes out there won't be anything to do but"Get' er Done"!.


----------



## purtman (Sep 19, 2006)

Car1181 said:


> I will blame the guy that bought a TV 3 years ago because, unless he was living under a rock, he should have known all signals were going digital within a few years. This info was out there ten years ago. It was debated in public before it became official. And if he's investing $500.00 in a new tv he should do a little homework first.


You would be amazed how many elderly people, people living out in the sticks, etc. are unaware of this. Unfortunately, many sales people will not pass this along to the customer, instead just looking to make a buck.

Before blasting those people, remember that the people who post to this site are more in tuned to what is going on in the digital industry. I follow the news very closely and have for years. However, the transition to digital broadcasting has gone way under the radar. I would say close to two-thirds of the population is unaware of it.

Ask yourself. Outside of sites like this, where have you really seen it mentioned? Certainly on the the standard news radio or TV stations on even on the internet.


----------



## Car1181 (Mar 30, 2006)

purtman said:


> You would be amazed how many elderly people, people living out in the sticks, etc. are unaware of this. Unfortunately, many sales people will not pass this along to the customer, instead just looking to make a buck.
> 
> Before blasting those people, remember that the people who post to this site are more in tuned to what is going on in the digital industry. I follow the news very closely and have for years. However, the transition to digital broadcasting has gone way under the radar. I would say close to two-thirds of the population is unaware of it.
> 
> Ask yourself. Outside of sites like this, where have you really seen it mentioned? Certainly on the the standard news radio or TV stations on even on the internet.


I'm not trying to blast anyone and I'm sorry if it came across that way. I think the elderly whose sole income is social security, families below certain income levels, etc. should get help from the Feds. But some of the prior posts suggest that everyone should get a free set top box at the taxpayers expense as if this is something suddenly being forced on everyone. I admit you don't see this discussion in the papers or on the news today but it was all over the news before and after the decision was made.


----------



## Cholly (Mar 22, 2004)

Like HDMe and the dchief, I grabbed an Accurian HD set top box on clearance. It works quite well.
The digital transition in all probability won't affect cable customers other than make them lease set top boxes, assunimg the cable companies discontinue analog service. Or, the cable companies can convert digital signals to analog and provide them on their present analog channels.

When the government discontinued low band FM broadcasting in favor of the 88 - 108 MHz band, it was the consumer's responsibility to buy a new radio or converter.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

My guess.. is that starting in 2008, you are going to start seeing a lot more about it on the news and papers, and other magazines.

Most articles begging for it to be extended yet again... 
Wouldn't surprise me if it makes it into the some of the campaign promisses for the '08 elections.


----------



## markrubi (Oct 12, 2006)

The backup plan is Wal-Mart will have an HDTV for around $300 smokes. It will be like the day after Thanksgiving. People stampedeing to electronics.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

As long as I can't get OTA without a 50' tower and have access
to sat or cable, I don't need no stinkin' converter box. :bonk1:


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

markrubi said:


> The backup plan is Wal-Mart will have an HDTV for around $300 smokes.


That's $280 too much.

My notes from 2004 show the following ---
DTV Tuner Required: (approximate dates)
07-01-03 - 50% of sets 36" or larger
07-01-04 - 100% of sets 36" or larger
07-01-05 - 50% of sets 25" or larger
07-01-06 - 100% of sets 25" or larger
07-01-07 - 100% of sets 13" or larger and all VCRs/DVDs with a tuner
Note that the sets are NOT required to be HDTV, only to be able to tune DTV.

I'm finding several documents that confirm that the schedule is still in place for 100% of all sets 13" or larger and all VCRs/DVDs with a tuner to be ATSC compatable. After July 1st, 2007 non-compliant sets cannot be sold.

It is less than two years before the deadline, but at least it eliminates some of the "I just bought a new TV last year" yet ignorant of the future crowd.

PEOPLE DO NOT NEED HDTVs. THEY ONLY NEED ATSC TUNERS. The confusion between digital and HD is the worst part of this transition. Too many people still think of digital and the deadlines as being a conversion to HD. It isn't.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

> If you had spent $ 500 for a new 32" or more for a larger set just 3 years ago that did not have the new tuners installed, would you just throw it out or request the government give you a new converter box for free?


I would just buy one myself. There are two things I will not do. Rely on support from the government, 2) participate in any way shape or form in a class action lawsuit.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

Steve Mehs said:


> I would just buy one myself. There are two things I will not do. Rely on support from the government, 2) participate in any way shape or form in a class action lawsuit.


Ditto. I get solicitations for class action crap in the mail all the time. It goes in the round file.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

When I was a Netflix subscriber, I got a notice I could opt in and get 4 DVDs out at a time for a month as part of a CAL settlement. I threw it in the garbage. CALs are started by whiny little crybabies who feel they’ve been ‘violated’. I will not support the sue happy attitude trend.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

James Long said:


> Why is it the White House's responsibility? Does the Democrat controlled congress have a plan?
> 
> Looks like a political message from Mr Swann, and you know how much we like political messages around here.


You make a valid point, though, James, for it was the _Congress _who pushed this law through, with all its intricate details. Why not then have _Congress _figure out what to do. This isn't too different from those typical unfunded mandates they always push through.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Car1181 said:


> I'm not trying to blast anyone and I'm sorry if it came across that way. I think the elderly whose sole income is social security, families below certain income levels, etc. should get help from the Feds.


Think about it this way... how did those families get a TV and antenna setup today? Did the government buy their TV and antenna and install it (or pay to have it installed)?

Somehow they managed to get their TV today on their fixed income... so why wouldn't they be able to get a cheap converter box in a couple of years? We see all those "for just $1 a day" commercials advertising for useless things... those fixed income folks could save just $1 a day and pay for a converter box in a couple of months when the time comes!

Seriously... when we have homeless people in this country without a place to live or food to eat, I have a very hard time justifying buying anyone something to help them watch TV!


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

Boys and girls, listen carefully. Analog TV will never be shut down. 

This particular pasion play goes like this, as I predicted when it started a decade ago.

- The NABandits are given a seperate digital channel, as pay off for 50 years of water carrying for the then in power.

- The NABandits drag their feet on getting these channels actually up and running with valid content. Running at micro-power with SD simulcast and worthless side-channel content like weather maps and The Tube.

- The "deadline" approaches and there is much constrination about "the poor" and their access to TV. The deadline is pushed back and back and back.

- The NABandits are left with two channels. Their regular analog one and a seperate digital one, which is the home of competitive to cable/dish scrambled pay services.

It was all planned from day one.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The FCC will be shutting down Analog. Stations in general are doing fairly well - there are a few that blew their budgets and will struggle to meet 2009 but the important thing to remember is:This is a digital conversion, not a HD conversion.​An ATSC modulator is expensive but is all the digital that a station needs other than the transmitter, feed line and antenna (which are not digital past the exciter but do need to be purchased). Flash cut stations will need the ATSC modulator and an exciter that will put an ATSC signal into their transmitter instead of a NTSC signal.

Meeting the digital deadline is relatively cheap. It is stations that are feeling the competitive pressure FROM OTHER STATIONS - NOT THE FCC - to go to HD that is holding some of them back. They are whining about costs that really don't have to be spent to meet the mandate.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

Television may not be a "right", but it has become a necessity to most folks. That's why there is so much emphasis placed on EAS, news and weather. Newspapers don't put out an "Instant Special Edition" when a tornado is sighted, and many people still don't have internet, or instant messaging. PBS still gets a chunk of your tax dollars, because the Government thinks some of this stuff is worthwhile, to educate the children and the public.

The "converter boxes" are being developed and tested. No one is sure what they will cost, who will qualify, or how they will be distributed. Hopefully, the boxes will be inexpensive enough that J6P will purchase several out right, and not just leave them for the subsidy crowd. Then, there will be enough demand to make them cheaper. I'm hoping for about $60.00 each. That would make them worth using on existing sets, DVD recorders, and VCRs.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Steve Mehs said:


> If the government provides anything for the transition, I am going to puke. Last I checked 'using tax dollars to provide antennas and converters' is not in the Constitution.


Congress approved 1.5 billion dollars to R&D digital set-top converters and provide coupons for those who need them. A company like LG could probably prototype a workable solution for under $100,000.

I'd be willing to set up a website to handle distribution of the coupons for much less than $100,000,000 that the act sets aside.

According to the National Telecommunications & Information Administration, they will be distributing up to two coupons to every household that can be redeemed for a set-top box.

All of this is funded as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005; signed into law by President George W. Bush on February 28, 2006.

See more at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/otiahome/dtv/


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

harsh said:


> All of this is funded as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005; signed into law by President George W. Bush on February 28, 2006.


If this happens... I am ashamed of our government. Seriously. There are people starving and sleeping in the streets in this country, but our government will spend billions of dollars so people can watch TV?

Sad.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

> Television may not be a "right", but it has become a necessity to most folks. That's why there is so much emphasis placed on EAS, news and weather. Newspapers don't put out an "Instant Special Edition" when a tornado is sighted, and many people still don't have internet, or instant messaging.


Emerson Instant Weather Radio, $14.86 at WalMart.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

HDMe said:


> If this happens... I am ashamed of our government.


Everything the Federal Government does costs 1000 times what it should. Pork barrel projects is how the Republicans got the Democrats to sign on to such deals.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Steve Mehs said:


> Emerson Instant Weather Radio, $14.86 at WalMart.


Just so you know, weather radio doesn't carry Emergency Broadcasting System feeds nor Amber Alert warnings.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

Sure about that?

"NOAA Weather Radio All Hazards is a network of radio stations broadcasting continuous weather information directly from a nearby National Weather Service (NWS) office. It is operated by the NWS, an agency of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within the United States Department of Commerce. NWR broadcasts National Weather Service warnings, watches, forecasts and other hazard information 24 hours a day. *It also broadcasts alerts of non-weather emergencies such as national security, natural, environmental, and public safety (see: AMBER Alert) through the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Emergency Alert System"*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOAA_Weather_Radio


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

And Directly from NOAA themselves

NOAA Weather Radio All Hazards (NWR) is a nationwide network of radio stations broadcasting continuous weather information directly from a nearby National Weather Service office . NWR broadcasts National Weather Service warnings, watches, forecasts and other hazard information 24 hours a day.

Working with the Federal Communication Commission's (FCC) Emergency Alert System , NWR is an "All Hazards" radio network, making it your single source for comprehensive weather and emergency information. *In conjunction with Federal, State, and Local Emergency Managers and other public officials, NWR also broadcasts warning and post-event information for all types of hazards - including natural (such as earthquakes or avalanches), environmental (such as chemical releases or oil spills), and public safety (such as AMBER alerts or 911 Telephone outages). *

Known as the "Voice of NOAA's National Weather Service," NWR is provided as a public service by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), part of the Department of Commerce. NWR includes more than 940 transmitters , covering all 50 states, adjacent coastal waters, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the U.S. Pacific Territories. NWR requires a special radio receiver or scanner capable of picking up the signal. Broadcasts are found in the VHF public service band at these seven frequencies (MHz):

http://www.weather.gov/nwr


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> Just so you know, weather radio doesn't carry Emergency Broadcasting System feeds nor Amber Alert warnings.


In Indiana EAS is carried on the NWS feeds, including being a statewide source for Amber Alerts. Sometimes it is a better source than the AM/FM P1 and P2 stations. Plus the warnings mentioned in the thread above (tornadoes) are SOURCED from the NWS. Even if you found the exeptional NWS station that didn't pass on an Amber Alert or non weather related EAS message ALL the weather related messages would be available.

As Steve sourced ... the NWS has joined in to the EAS system. The alerts are there.


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

Anybody who is depending on "local" TV to warn them of impending doom is crazy.


----------



## richlife (Dec 4, 2006)

James Long said:


> Why is it the White House's responsibility? Does the Democrat controlled congress have a plan?
> 
> Looks like a political message from Mr Swann, and you know how much we like political messages around here.


It's called leadership. (All political comments that I'd love to make have been carefully removed.)


----------



## richlife (Dec 4, 2006)

Car1181 said:


> I will blame the guy that bought a TV 3 years ago because, unless he was living under a rock, he should have known all signals were going digital within a few years. This info was out there ten years ago. It was debated in public before it became official. And if he's investing $500.00 in a new tv he should do a little homework first.


I think this and almost all these posts miss the essential point that most people just plain don't know about the conversion at all. They can't prepare because for whatever reason the import of the DTV message just hasn't gotten through. I'm well aware this is a change to DTV (not HD) but it's been estimated that as many as 60% of those who have purchased and HDTV don't have any HD service. If those buying the tvs don't get it, how can you assume those who aren't buying have any idea a change is looming. These people need the leadership of the govenment to at least get the information -- that's where the president or congress needs to step up -- not by financing equipment.

SamC said: "Anybody who is depending on "local" TV to warn them of impending doom is crazy."

Not completely true (though I probably agree for the most part). In central NC, WRAL, Ch.5/50 is giving away an appropriate antenna to any customer in their viewing area who will provide a receipt for a recent HDTV purchase. Clearly they want to avoid having their viewers left in the dark (or the snow) -- and of course to ensure their major outlay for HD broadcasting isn't being wasted. And BTW, they don't cheap out -- they are providing the correct Channel Master antenna based on the recommendations of anntennaweb.org.


----------

