# Open Email received from US Senator Sherrod Brown, Ohio re shutdown



## samhevener (Feb 23, 2006)

Dear Mr. Hevener:

Thank you for contacting me with questions about the digital television transition.

Some frequencies in the 700 MHZ band have traditionally been used for analog broadcasting. All told, 108 MHZ in the 700 MHZ band have have been made available for commercial use and public safety; none is for unlicensed use. Of that:

• 18 MHZ not used by TV was auctioned in 2002.
• 62 MHZ was put up for auction in 2008.
• 24 MHZ is allocated for public safety, of which 2 MHZ is for guard bands.
• 4 MHZ is set aside for guard bands (not counting the 2 MHZ assigned to pubic safety guard bands).
• Of the 62 MHZ auctioned in 2008, 10 MHZ is designated to be shared with public safety. This license has not been sold and action is still pending.

Although none of the 700 MHZ was allocated for unlicensed use, the FCC has moved to release other frequencies for unlicensed use, some of which will be for Part 15 devices. This decision was announced November 4, 2008. The FCC has not yet completed technical details about frequency assignments.

Additionally, I have heard from other constituents with reception problems similar to yours and I appreciate you taking the time to provide me with these details.

While there are great benefits to digital television, there are also some trade-offs. Analog signals radiate indefinitely and spread across many frequencies, allowing viewers to see programming, albeit at a degraded level, even when far away from the original broadcast source. Digital signals take up less spectrum and also provide much better picture and sound quality. However, the signals are more concentrated and targeted, and viewing far-away broadcasts is much more difficult. There are no "fuzzy pictures" with digital signals -- it is either all or nothing.

However, it is important to note that some television stations have not yet converted completely to digital broadcasting or are still experimenting with their digital signals. The inability to receive certain stations at this time does not mean they will not be available next year. In the case of some stations, the digital signals they're broadcasting right now -- during the transition period -- may not be the same as what they will be broadcasting on February 18, 2009. Some stations are temporarily using different channels for their digital broadcasts and will return to their original channel slot after the transition deadline. Finally, some stations may be currently transmitting their digital broadcasts at a lower power level than they will be putting out after the transition.

All television stations want the largest audience possible and it is in their interest for you to continue receiving their signals. You may wish to call the television stations you are concerned about and ask about their transition status and any suggestions they may have. After the transition, if viewers are having difficulty receiving a signal, these stations may reposition their broadcasting equipment or increase their signal.

Additionally, the Federal Communications Commission has published information for viewers who experience reception issues with digital broadcasts. In many of these cases, modifications or alterations to current antennas can improve the situation. You may wish to visit http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/dtvantennas.html to learn more about antennas and digital television. If it is necessary for outdoor antennas to be replaced or upgraded, the Consumer Electronics Association and the National Association of Broadcasters have also set up a website -- http://www.antennaweb.org -- designed to help locate the most appropriate antenna to receive local broadcast channels.

It is absolutely essential that no viewers are left in the dark when the analog broadcasts are turned off. As the transition to digital television moves forward, you can be sure that I will work to address the issues contained in your letter.

Thank you again for contacting me.

Senator Sherrod Brown


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

That's a remarkably good reply from a politician!


----------



## n3ntj (Dec 18, 2006)

Because it actually provides lots of useful technical info, I don't think the Senator wrote that reply..


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

OK, Sam.

Do you still think normal TV broadcasts on full-power analog will still be around after 2/18/09?


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

n3ntj said:


> Because it actually provides lots of useful technical info, I don't think the Senator wrote that reply..


One of the Senator's staff wrote it but it did take an extraordinary effort to get all that technical information correct. I'll tip my hat to that Senator for assembling a staff that cares. 

--- CHAS


----------



## samhevener (Feb 23, 2006)

I still say it will be delayed in some form but not a 100% delay. As you can tell from Senator Brown's letter he did not take my side on the issue but there are 99 other senators I haven't heard from. To answer the other comments, I'm sure he had one or more of his staff research the information and report back to me. The day is getting closer as the countdown clock at my local Walmart clicks off the days, Sam


Kansas Zephyr said:


> OK, Sam.
> 
> Do you still think normal TV broadcasts on full-power analog will still be around after 2/18/09?


----------



## luisorlando (Jun 19, 2003)

"Additionally, the Federal Communications Commission has published information for viewers who experience reception issues with digital broadcasts. In many of these cases, modifications or alterations to current antennas can improve the situation. "



I really don't care about the transition because I have used dbs since 1999, but if the FCC thought about people changing antennas for the digital transition, they should have think of a discount coupon for antennas too. It is not fair for the people to buy a digital converter and have to buy a new antenna too.


----------



## samhevener (Feb 23, 2006)

That is one of the points I have been trying to make since last Feb. Now with an unemployment rate that is going to be higher than any in my lifetime (I'm 64), people can least afford the expense. How about those who didn't apply for the $40.00 converter coupons because they have cable or satellite that lose there jobs after the coupon end date? The first thing they are going to cut is your cable/satellite service. Extend the transition until the economy recovers.


luisorlando said:


> "Additionally, the Federal Communications Commission has published information for viewers who experience reception issues with digital broadcasts. In many of these cases, modifications or alterations to current antennas can improve the situation. "
> 
> I really don't care about the transition because I have used dbs since 1999, but if the FCC thought about people changing antennas for the digital transition, they should have think of a discount coupon for antennas too. It is not fair for the people to buy a digital converter and have to buy a new antenna too.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

In that case - they will have to pay full price for them, or go without TV.

I'd expect them to drop down to "lifeline" cable service first (that should be under $20 / month) for at least basic channels. HD packages , higher end packages, DVRs - these will go first.


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

There will always be some faction that screams hardship. With all that money being thrown around in DC maybe we can appropriate another measly billion to subsidize a pay service for those poor and disadvantaged who can't make it next February.

--- CHAS


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

Besides Sam - look at it from the other side - the broadcasters are ALSO being squeezed and they would ALSO like to stop draining the (now unnecessary) analog feed's power bill.

The best thing to do is to keep going - it's been the plan, and that's what everybody should be working on. 

If you think that you may want a converter box - get one - nothing stopping you. Even as a "just in case", it might be a good idea to make sure you can get TV if cable goes out (yes, it does sometimes). So does DBS.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

Sam just thinks some "suits" will pay a tad extra.

He doesn't understand (or care?) that the cost of the digital transition, and the weakening economy have already led to staff terminations at numerous TV stations...and that additional costs of an analog extension will only cost more jobs.

Again, only 6% use OTA...of those 6% the majority will have BETTER OTA service after the end of full-power analog. The $40 converter coupon will purchase E*'s TR-40 CRA converter box.

There is more harm, than help, at this late date, to delay.

Don't monkey with the end of full-power analog.


----------



## samhevener (Feb 23, 2006)

I don't care much about multi-million dollar broadcasting companies. They were some of the ones who pushed for this "rushed" shutdown. The original shutdown was to be market by market. When 85% of the viewers in each market purchased a digital TV set, that market would shut analog starions down. When the broadcasters saw the number of viewers purchasing digital TVs was slower than estimated, they lobbied the FCC to include the viewers who still had analog TVs but were connected to cable or satellite to be included. That was still too slow for the megamillion dollar broadcasters and they lobbied for the current rushed shutdown. Their selling point was that we need the space freed up for "public service". If you check the letter from Senator Brown you will find only a small percentage of freed space goes for public service, most is freed up to allow multimillion dollar companies to bid on. The public owns the airwaves and the FCC only licenses the broadcasters to use them. Somewhere along the line the statement that Lincoln made in his Gettysburg address has changed from "a country of the people, by the people and for the people" to " a country of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations". This is true in almost everything today, not only in this case. Many new laws have been written over the past 20 years that give the corporations more power.


Kansas Zephyr said:


> Sam just thinks some "suits" will pay a tad extra.
> 
> He doesn't understand (or care?) that the cost of the digital transition, and the weakening economy have already led to staff terminations at numerous TV stations...and that additional costs of an analog extension will only cost more jobs.
> 
> ...


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

I've stayed out of the debate on the shutdown but I do think it's a good idea to draw that line in the sand and make it happen. I look at how this country has STILL failed to convert to the Metric system even though we were one of the original signees of the treaty in the 1890s and have passed several other acts to work towards conversion (1975 being the latest IIRC). Because no hard date was set it never got there and in fact the momentum has been lost. Obviously the Metric conversion is a larger issue than the DTV transition, but we've had 100+ years to get it done, and we're still not there!


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

samhevener said:


> I don't care much about multi-million dollar broadcasting companies. They were some of the ones who pushed for this "rushed" shutdown. The original shutdown was to be market by market. When 85% of the viewers in each market purchased a digital TV set, that market would shut analog starions down. When the broadcasters saw the number of viewers purchasing digital TVs was slower than estimated, they lobbied the FCC to include the viewers who still had analog TVs but were connected to cable or satellite to be included. That was still too slow for the megamillion dollar broadcasters and they lobbied for the current rushed shutdown. Their selling point was that we need the space freed up for "public service". If you check the letter from Senator Brown you will find only a small percentage of freed space goes for public service, most is freed up to allow multimillion dollar companies to bid on. The public owns the airwaves and the FCC only licenses the broadcasters to use them. Somewhere along the line the statement that Lincoln made in his Gettysburg address has changed from "a country of the people, by the people and for the people" to " a country of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations". This is true in almost everything today, not only in this case. Many new laws have been written over the past 20 years that give the corporations more power.


"RUSHED ?!?!?" This transition has been going for 10 YEARS or more ! And the LAST action by the FCC was to EXTEND (not shorten) the deadline for analog shutdown, precisely because the devices for reception were not where they needed to be for general use.

Pull your head out and go do some reading of recent history.


----------



## BillRadio (Aug 5, 2004)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> Again, only 6% use OTA...


References? The FCC says 15% average.
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257073A1.doc

They report it is 23% in our market.


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

BillRadio said:


> References? The FCC says 15% average ... They report it is 23% in our market.


Over the air viewers at 15% (national average) is the number that seems to be holding constant. I always thought that percentage would be closer to 10% after many viewers fall over the 'digital cliff'. But, the current economic calamity very well might skew the statistics for the next several years.

--- CHAS


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Two days ago, the NTIA released specs for each DMA and one national press release: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press/2008/DTV_TwoMonths_081217.html


> For Immediate Release: December 17, 2008
> Contact: Todd Sedmak or Bart Forbes, (202) 482-7002 or [email protected]
> 
> WASHINGTON-The Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) today announced that with two months until the transition to digital television concludes, 76 percent of all households that rely on television with an antenna have requested coupons from the TV Converter Box Coupon Program. Based on self-reporting, 11 million households have requested coupons out of 14.3 million that Nielsen says rely on TV over-the-air. The program helps households switch to digital television when full-power TV broadcasters transition from analog to 100 percent digital broadcasts on February 17, 2009.
> ...


So we're down to roughly 3M people who aren't aware enough to have ordered boxes _or have other reasons to have delayed._ I say that because my sister is still deciding on DIRECTV (my suggestion) or converters. She is definitely aware, just been too busy this last two months taking care of mom.

So the sky is not falling. Yes there will be people put out that day. There was never anything that would stop that. But that number is shrinking everyday, thank goodness.

Merry Christmas!
Tom


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

I wouldn't expect every over the air viewer to order coupons. Many of those three million might be watching with late model TV sets already equipped with digital tuners.

--- CHAS


----------



## n3ntj (Dec 18, 2006)

Digital TV conversion? What does that mean? First I've heard of it..


----------



## samhevener (Feb 23, 2006)

You are correct in that the conversion ( for broadcasters) has been going on for 10 years. The "shutdown" on Feb 17 wouldn't be much of a problem IF the FFC or Congress would have mandated at that time "all TV receivers or tuners sold as of that day have digital tuners." I saw analog only TV sets for sale at Walmart as late as last year.


scooper said:


> "RUSHED ?!?!?" This transition has been going for 10 YEARS or more ! And the LAST action by the FCC was to EXTEND (not shorten) the deadline for analog shutdown, precisely because the devices for reception were not where they needed to be for general use.
> 
> Pull your head out and go do some reading of recent history.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

samhevener said:


> You are correct in that the conversion ( for broadcasters) has been going on for 10 years. The "shutdown" on Feb 17 wouldn't be much of a problem IF the FFC or Congress would have mandated at that time "all TV receivers or tuners sold as of that day have digital tuners." I saw analog only TV sets for sale at Walmart as late as last year.


The FCC did require all tuners "shipped interstate" and into the states be digital as of March 1, 2007. And as of May, 2007, all remaining stock sales of analog only tuners had to be labeled clearly.

Lastly, the FCC has fined a number of retailers for violating these rules.

Happy Hanukkah and Merry Christmas!
Tom


----------



## samhevener (Feb 23, 2006)

The FCC should have required this 10 years ago. not just a year and a half before the 'shutdown".


Tom Robertson said:


> The FCC did require all tuners "shipped interstate" and into the states be digital as of March 1, 2007. And as of May, 2007, all remaining stock sales of analog only tuners had to be labeled clearly.
> 
> Lastly, the FCC has fined a number of retailers for violating these rules.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

March would have been 2 years. And yes, the FCC should have required the labeling even sooner; perhaps they had been thinking education efforts would be enough.

As for 10 years? Not sure which you are asking. Until the manufacturers HAD a way to manufacture digital tuners economically, certainly couldn't require their presence in the TVs. Nor could they put up warnings until viable alternatives were on the market. 

Maybe the warnings 3 or 4 years ago? In hindsight, that might have been a good idea.

But then again, 85% of the public won't need to change a thing. So wouldn't have mattered if they had analog only tuners.

Merry Christmas!
Tom


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

samhevener said:


> The FCC should have required this 10 years ago. not just a year and a half before the 'shutdown".


Requiring ATSC tuners in all TVs 10 years ago simply wasn't feasible - it would have added $200+ to the cost of EACH TV/ VCR, etc. When they did start requiring ATSC tuners , they started at the high end sets and worked their way down to "All TV reception devices" by last summer, going down a class size about every year or so.

I don't think the FCC could have done much better given all the circumstances. I'd grade them as a B+ / A- .


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

I agree with Sam in believing the tuner mandate should have been issued sooner. Wasn't the transition originally scheduled for 2006 or when 85% of the viewers were ready? That goal clearly wasn't realistic because new TVs weren't ready and the converter program wasn't in place. 

That was then and this is now. Many stations have already gone digital only. Hawaii will be digital only in a few weeks. The majority of stations doing dual modes only need to pull the 'big switch' next February (March if they send transition only info).

The converter program went well with the government agencies and broadcasting industry having done prodigious duty to make it work during the last, and most critical, year preceding the main event. 

I'll give the government a solid B and that's not bad for the government.

--- CHAS


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

BillRadio said:


> References? The FCC says 15% average.
> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257073A1.doc
> 
> They report it is 23% in our market.


http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr...sion/news/e3id78469d811368539902a646b58df4271


----------

