# Breaking News: House refuses to fast track DTV Delay Act



## Tom Robertson

In this morning's vote on the House floor, the House did not reach the 2/3rds majority necessary to suspend the rules to pass the DTV Delay Act. At this point the transition date is still February 17/18, 2009.

I think this means the bill will not pass in time before the transition would occur, effectively killing the delay. (But I very well could be misreading how things work.)

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## CyberTrip02

I was not expecting that to happen. Most of the brocasters were for the delay because it would allow them to have additional viewers for a bit longer thus increasing revenue streams from commercials. But I understand that smaller stations really are pushing their costs to keep both analog and digital up. Not to mention some can't even go digital untill they cut their analog transmissions.


----------



## Dave

I believe what this will mean, that later on today they will have a 1 hour discussion and then have the final vote. What they voted on this morning was suspend the rules for the debate. The debate will happen later this afternoon after the debate for the stimulus package.


----------



## Tom Robertson

Thanks, I was not sure of the procedure. I'll try to keep up


----------



## minorthr

Wow I didn't expect that. Finally congress does something that makes sense. Let the 7% of people who aren't ready suffer. They will figure it out when their TVs stop working and then claim they had no idea this was coming.


----------



## CyberTrip02

minorthr said:


> Wow I didn't expect that. Finally congress does something that makes sense. Let the 7% of people who aren't ready suffer. They will figure it out when their TVs stop working and then claim they had no idea this was coming.


And those people that claim to not have been informed probably were not informed. The reason being because they probably rarely watch TV anyways.


----------



## James Long

The vote ...
*On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended*
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll041.xml

I wonder what the amendment was? Or are they referring to the senate's amendment?
If the house has amended the bill the changes will have to be reconciled.


----------



## Tom Robertson

Or does the bill go to the appropriate commitee first?


----------



## Stuart Sweet

woo hoo! Good catch, Tom!


----------



## tfederov

I seriously doubt the delay will do any good. If a person hasn't received the proper notice by now then it's on them. If this has to do with the converter coupons, give the money to the manufacturers and sell them at what it is with the discount already included.


----------



## Pete K.

Sometimes, every once in a blue moon they do something right in D.C.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/28/AR2009012801883.html?hpid=topnews


----------



## Michael D'Angelo

Whatever happens I think a lot of stations are still going to turn off the analog signal on the 17th. Baltimore FOX (WBFF) and CBS (WJZ) have stated last night and this morning they are turning it off on the 17th. I have not check ABC or NBC yet.


----------



## julesism

Pete K. said:


> Sometimes, every once in a blue moon they do something right in D.C.


+1


----------



## James Long

Tom Robertson said:


> Or does the bill go to the appropriate commitee first?


I believe they suspended that last night when the bill was heard on the floor.


----------



## Mark Holtz

James Long said:


> The vote ...
> *On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended*
> http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll041.xml
> 
> If the house has amended the bill the changes will have to be reconciled.


As far as I can see, it was 99% along party lines.

Good. I particularly thought it was interesting that they consider it a emergency when, in fact f$ae!j*4~53*gg*2 _NO CARRIER_


----------



## neljtorres

Watch it online on CSPAN could not believe it! But there was a republican in the discussion I forgot his name and was saying that they could not delay the analog shutdown because of national security issues that Homeland Security and other Federal Agencies needs the analog transmission in case of a national emergencies.


----------



## Cap'n Preshoot

CyberTrip02 said:


> And those people that claim to not have been informed probably were not informed. The reason being because they probably rarely watch TV anyways.


It also wouldn't matter if it were postponed 4 months or 4 years, or 4 decades. There will always be that small percentage of people who still don't understand or will procrastinate indefinitely.


----------



## Tom Robertson

James, I don't think so. The first mention of the bill (aside from the message of the bill's passing in the Senate) is the Motion to suspend the rules to pass the bill. It has not gone thru formal introduction, committee processing, etc.

But I'm reading as fast as I can find stuff.


----------



## joblo

James Long said:


> The vote ...
> *On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended*
> http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll041.xml
> 
> I wonder what the amendment was? Or are they referring to the senate's amendment?
> If the house has amended the bill the changes will have to be reconciled.


Probably the Senate version was introduced as a substitute amendment for whatever they already had on the House side. But I'm just guessing about that.

I'm not all that surprised they didn't get the two-thirds. I expect they will pass it by majority at some point though, whether via the committee process or otherwise.


----------



## Tom Robertson

Reuters is reporting the bill has not passed: http://tech.yahoo.com/news/nm/20090128/tc_nm/us_dtv_delay_2


----------



## James Long

neljtorres said:


> Watch it online on CSPAN could not believe it! But there was a republican in the discussion I forgot his name and was saying that they could not delay the analog shutdown because of national security issues that Homeland Security and other Federal Agencies needs the analog transmission in case of a national emergencies.


Uh ... not delay because they need a delay?

Homeland Security NEEDS the shutdown to be on schedule to free up the spectrum for first responders (trunked radio systems). Delaying the shutdown so analog TV is available to reach people is the opposite argument.


----------



## Doug Brott

Michael D'Angelo;1976484 said:


> Whatever happens I think a lot of stations are still going to turn off the analog signal on the 17th. Baltimore FOX (WBFF) and CBS (WJZ) have stated last night and this morning they are turning it off on the 17th. I have not check ABC or NBC yet.


At this point you are likely correct .. The current Law is February 17 which is now 21 days away. How many are likely to (now) have contingencies to stay on?


----------



## James Long

Tom Robertson said:


> James, I don't think so. The first mention of the bill (aside from the message of the bill's passing in the Senate) is the Motion to suspend the rules to pass the bill. It has not gone thru formal introduction, committee processing, etc.
> 
> But I'm reading as fast as I can find stuff.


The first mention was last night. 

Start here and read 10 pages for last night's introduction and debate.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2009_record&page=H584&position=all


----------



## Steve615

Michael D'Angelo;1976484 said:


> Whatever happens I think a lot of stations are still going to turn off the analog signal on the 17th. Baltimore FOX (WBFF) and CBS (WJZ) have stated last night and this morning they are turning it off on the 17th. I have not check ABC or NBC yet.


WTVF (CBS) in Nashville is sticking to the 2/17 cutoff date.
Here is a recent FCC filing from WTVF in regards to their 2008 4th quarter DTV report.

http://wtvf.images.worldnow.com/images/incoming/DTV_Reports/WTVF%204th%20Quarter%202008%20Form%20388%20(as%20filed).PDF

WSMV (NBC) is also full-time HD in Nashville currently.
Sinclair Broadcasting Group had announced last year that WZTV (FOX) would be going full-time HD,but that has not happened yet.
AFAIK,WNPT (PBS) is good to go for full-time HD,but they claim to be waiting on TV service providers (satellite & cable) so alot more folks can view the HD channel without an OTA antenna.
WKRN (ABC) is owned & operated by the Young Broadcast Corp.
They have been keeping a low profile in regards to going full-time HD.


----------



## Henry

CyberTrip02 said:


> And those people that claim to not have been informed probably were not informed. The reason being because they probably rarely watch TV anyways.


But, but ... Isn't the delay being proposed because over 6 million folks want to buy a converter box but can't (for whatever reason)? That hardly sounds like people affected are not in the know.


----------



## jpeckinp

Wait one minute here. 
This reminds me of a story that gets passed around in High School.
How did it go from 3 million homes to 6.5 million homes to the Reuters report saying 20 Million homes?
Next week it will be 100% of homes are not ready.


----------



## msmith198025

Glad to see that this is more than likely dead


----------



## jpl

I'm really confused by this. From what I understand the vote was about suspending rules for debate. Meaning that there was a vote of the order of: 'forget about the normal rules for debating this issue - let's vote to suspend those rules and just go right to a vote of the bill.' That's generally what that stuff means. It sounds like the vote to suspend the rules for debate are what failed, which means that the normal rules for debate of the bill are in place. But that one article in the Washington Post that was linked here (forget who posted that) is pretty clear - the bill died. Seems really odd that you would have the bill die like that when it was unanimus in the Senate. Especially since in the House the majority really does rule - not so much in the Senate where procedural rules can stop a vote (e.g. a filibuster). In the House, the agenda really is set by the majority - and if the democrats WANTED this bill to pass, there's nothing that the republicans could have done to stop it.


----------



## ziggy29

jpl said:


> I'm really confused by this. From what I understand the vote was about suspending rules for debate. Meaning that there was a vote of the order of: 'forget about the normal rules for debating this issue - let's vote to suspend those rules and just go right to a vote of the bill.' That's generally what that stuff means. It sounds like the vote to suspend the rules for debate are what failed, which means that the normal rules for debate of the bill are in place. But that one article in the Washington Post that was linked here (forget who posted that) is pretty clear - the bill died.


My understanding is that this vote was necessary to "fast track" the legislation and bypass the usual lawmaking process. Unlike the legislation itself which can be passed with a simple majority of both houses, to suspend the normal rules require a 2/3 supermajority.

So in reality what that means -- I think -- is that this bill would now be required to go through all the usual processes, committees and the like before making it to the president's desk for a signature. But that process would take long enough that it would be after 2/17 anyway -- meaning it's dead.

Now maybe this will have more lives than a cat and maybe they'll try again with a few bones thrown to Republicans to try to get that supermajority, but I really don't know.


----------



## Pete K.

In a nutshell, House Democrats were attempting to "fast track" the bill, with limited debate. Republicans scuttled the "fast track." The bill is not dead.
The House can still bring the bill up for a vote next week with lengthier debate, the addition of amendments, and a majority rules vote. The problem with that? The clock is ticking.


----------



## Sirshagg

From what I've been reading a bill normally goes through a committee which will debate and possibly ammend the bill. The rules suspension means that the bill did not go through this process and went straight to the floor for a vote. Handling the bill like this requires a 2/3 vote to pass which it did not get.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

So they delayed voting on the delay? 

Your tax dollars at work.


----------



## n3ntj

Thank God the House voted against this bill! Let's turn off analog TV on 2/17 (as has been planned on for a long time) and move on. Of course, low power stations are not affected by the shutdown.


----------



## Tom Robertson

The House Rules state that a suspension of rules to pass a bill are bound by many things, a couple of important ones (that I've found so far):
1) can only be introduced on Mondays or Tuesdays (possibly Wednesdays?) and the last 6 legislative days (not an issue, just mentioning it)
2) does not pass/fail the bill itself.
3) If failing, the Speaker may re-introduce the suspension motion again on a later date.
4) The Chairperson of the appropriate committee often can make the request _without any consultation with the committee_. So the committee may not have heard the bill or approved of it.

So I'm trying to track down what happens to this bill now.


----------



## roadrunner1782

I think most stations will still change on the 17th. I actually had an e-mail from Time Warner this morning telling me my Roadrunner bill was available on their website and at the bottom of the e-mail it said in somewhat bold letters that the transition was still in affect for the 17th!


----------



## Fontano

n3ntj said:


> Thank God the House voted against this bill! Let's turn off analog TV on 2/17 (as has been planned on for a long time) and move on. Of course, low power stations are not affected by the shutdown.


Someone correct me if I am wrong.

Did they infact vote AGAINST the bill.

Or the procedural motions, where voted down.
Which were necessary to even bring up the vote on the bill?

I have not read it indepth yet, but to me it looks more like:
They voted against the motion to have a vote on the bill, not the bill itself.


----------



## Fontano

Does anyone know if any riders were added to the bill? That led to the prodominant party line vote?


----------



## fluffybear

HDG said:


> But, but ... Isn't the delay being proposed because over 6 million folks want to buy a converter box but can't (for whatever reason)? That hardly sounds like people affected are not in the know.


No, it just means 6 million are not ready! They could be in possession of a voucher and chosen not to redeem it, they could be on a waiting for their voucher, they could be misinformed and think they are not ready for the digital transition when in fact they are, or they plan to wait until the very last second.

According to the last numbers I saw, there were less the waiting list was less then 1 million vouchers (keeping in mind that some may be requesting multiple vouchers)


----------



## ziggy29

Fontano said:


> Someone correct me if I am wrong.
> 
> Did they infact vote AGAINST the bill.
> 
> Or the procedural motions, where voted down.
> Which were necessary to even bring up the vote on the bill?
> 
> I have not read it indepth yet, but to me it looks more like:
> They voted against the motion to have a vote on the bill, not the bill itself


They voted against suspending the usual rules to allow the bill to come to a vote without following the standard procedures. They did not vote against the bill itself.

The bill itself would only need a simple majority. The vote to suspend the rules required a 2/3 supermajority which it failed to muster.


----------



## Sirshagg

SO this may still happen


----------



## James Long

jpl said:


> Seems really odd that you would have the bill die like that when it was unanimus in the Senate.


It passed the senate with UNANIMOUS CONSENT ... it was not a unanimous vote. Basically "without objection".



> In the House, the agenda really is set by the majority - and if the democrats WANTED this bill to pass, there's nothing that the republicans could have done to stop it.


They can slow it down and stop it from being railroaded through by the majority.


----------



## xIsamuTM

It's like the opening of Hitchhikers only with TV.

"I'm sorry, but if you can't be bothered to take an interest in local affairs that's your own lookout. "


----------



## Tom Robertson

The House does not have a party line supermajority necessary to pass this instantly. So now this bill goes thru the regular process and calendar. (Or dies from lack of timeliness.)


----------



## GravelChan

Steve615
WSMV (NBC) is also full-time HD in Nashville currently.
Sinclair Broadcasting Group had announced last year that WZTV (FOX) would be going full-time HD said:


> KELO (CBS) Sioux Falls, SD.... also a Young Broadcasting station announced this morning that they will be switching on the 17'th regardless whether the bill passes or not.


----------



## minorthr

CyberTrip02 said:


> And those people that claim to not have been informed probably were not informed. The reason being because they probably rarely watch TV anyways.


Again sucks to be them. They will figure it out when they turn their TVs on and they don't work. They have had plenty of time to simply stumble on to the info. Its not like last Tuesday we just suddenly decided that Feb 17th we are shutting the analog signals off.


----------



## BaldEagle

Sirshagg said:


> SO this may still happen


Not may happen, it will happen. Passed in the Senate, new vote to be taken in the house that only requires a simple majority to pass. The votes were not there the first time around for 2/3rd but will easily pass when only a majority is needed.


----------



## cb7214

CyberTrip02 said:


> And those people that claim to not have been informed probably were not informed. The reason being because they probably rarely watch TV anyways.


and if that was the case don't forget about the newspapers radio billboards etc that also had info on the transition


----------



## Tom Robertson

BaldEagle said:


> Not may happen, it will happen. Passed in the Senate, new vote to be taken in the house that only requires a simple majority to pass. The votes were not there the first time around for 2/3rd but will easily pass when only a majority is needed.


If it can be scheduled for a vote in time. That is the part that is unclear to me right now.


----------



## jefbal99

GravelChan said:


> KELO (CBS) Sioux Falls, SD.... also a Young Broadcasting station announced this morning that they will be switching on the 17'th regardless whether the bill passes or not.


I spoke with a station engineer at WLNS in Lansing, a Young Broadcasting station, they can't move until WJRT in Flint moves as they are using the channel currently.

I hope that the move is not delayed, not the fault of the overwhelming majority that the minority didn't get their ducks in a row.


----------



## jpl

James Long said:


> It passed the senate with UNANIMOUS CONSENT ... it was not a unanimous vote. Basically "without objection".
> 
> They can slow it down and stop it from being railroaded through by the majority.


Was it by unanimous concent? Everywhere I've read about it the bill passed unanimously - I took that to mean by unanimous vote, but I could be wrong. As for your second point, no that's not true. They can't slow it down. In the House the majority really does rule. They set the agenda on what get's debated and voted on. I don't want to migrate to the political here, because I know that's not allowed on this forum, however, since we're discussing procedural issues with regard to legislation I think it's valid to talk about this. Look at what happened late summer - as Congress was going into summer recess the GOP kept pushing for their position on drilling off-shore. They wanted to lift the Congressional ban on it. The democrats absoultely refused to even hold a debate on the bill. As a result, no debate happened. The bill was never introduced. It was never discussed (at least not while Congress was in session), and it certainly never came up for a vote. The GOP couldn't even prevent the House from being called to recess, although they tried. The rules simply didn't allow for it - the majority wanted to adjourn, so they did.

About the best that the minority can do is to do just what they did here - prevent votes on bills that require suspension of normal rules of debate. The only exception to this happens IF the majority GIVES the minority specific authority to act. For example, the majority could give the minority, through the adoption of the rules, the ability to bring up points of order... or offer up bills outside of the approval of the majority. But (again, I'm NOT trying to get political on this - just explaining my understanding of the procedures) one of the first things that Speaker Pelosi did was to take away any such authorization, when she took power in January of 2007. Prior to that the minority DID have some authority granted to it by the majority. When the majority flipped, those authorizations were taken away.

BTW, thanks to all the replies on the clarification. That makes alot of sense - the fact that the clock is ticking on this (I lost sight of just how close the scheduled transition was) would prevent a normal bill from going through. The Wash Post article then is wrong - they didn't vote down the bill. THAT'S where my confusion came from.


----------



## Henry

fluffybear said:


> No, it just means 6 million are not ready! They could be in possession of a voucher and chosen not to redeem it, they could be on a waiting for their voucher, they could be misinformed and think they are not ready for the digital transition when in fact they are, or they plan to wait until the very last second.
> 
> According to the last numbers I saw, there were less the waiting list was less then 1 million vouchers (keeping in mind that some may be requesting multiple vouchers)


I'll take that to mean you agree that it's hard to believe that all of these affected people are not in the know.


----------



## tkrandall

Has anyone seed the actual language in the senate bill as it pertains to which gets priority (existing analog broadcast or new permanent-RF-home digital broadcast) as of Feb 18? Hopefully, the new bill/law allows digital to trump any conflicting analog signal, and thereby force an analog shutdown in those cases.


----------



## Dave

After some more investigation I have foumd that the bill is definately dead.
This was a special bill that needed a 2/3 majority to pass. It the bill, is now completly dead. It will not happen. The changeover is now set in stone unless they try to do a new bill completely. The change over right now is Feb. 17, 2009.


----------



## Paul Secic

tfederov said:


> I seriously doubt the delay will do any good. If a person hasn't received the proper notice by now then it's on them. If this has to do with the converter coupons, give the money to the manufacturers and sell them at what it is with the discount already included.


It's the NAB'S and stations fault. They should've aired PSAS on the hour and half hour since 2006.


----------



## Tom Robertson

The latest Reuters report indicates that the bill could be brought up again next week without a rules suspension. Under those rules a couple things are possible:
1) simple majority (bill likely passes)
2) but--the bill can be amended! (again by simple majority).

If the bill is amended, it would have to go back to the Senate or a joint committee to resolve the differences.

So the bill is not dead yet.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson

Dave said:


> After some more investigation I have foumd that the bill is definately dead.
> This was a special bill that needed a 2/3 majority to pass. It the bill, is now completly dead. It will not happen. The changeover is now set in stone unless they try to do a new bill completely. The change over right now is Feb. 17, 2009.


Links?

The bill would not normally be dead. It can be re-introduced in two ways: 1) again under a suspension of the rules (and would still need 2/3rds majority) or 2) normal bill introduction, committee, debate, possible amending, etc. (only requires simple majority votes.)


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Thanks, Tom, for that not terribly happy news.


----------



## Tom Robertson

tkrandall said:


> Has anyone seed the actual language in the senate bill as it pertains to which gets priority (existing analog broadcast or new permanent-RF-home digital broadcast) as of Feb 18? Hopefully, the new bill/law allows digital to trump any conflicting analog signal, and thereby force an analog shutdown in those cases.


As far as the transition itself, the Senate Bill only extends the deadlines without modifying priority and without modifying the ability to transition early (under the existing rules to early transition.)

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## James Long

jpl said:


> Was it by unanimous concent? Everywhere I've read about it the bill passed unanimously - I took that to mean by unanimous vote, but I could be wrong.


Unanimous consent has been noted in our threads (and you can confirm by checking Thomas (congress.gov)).



> As for your second point, no that's not true. They can't slow it down.


They already HAVE slowed it down by objecting to the "unanimous consent" in the house last night (where the speaker pro tem "heard" a 2/3rds majority before the roll call vote was requested) and by that vote not passing this morning. It is obvious that they can slow it down when they HAVE!


----------



## Tom Robertson

James Long said:


> ...
> They already HAVE slowed it down by objecting to the "unanimous consent" in the house last night (where the speaker pro tem "heard" a 2/3rds majority before the roll call vote was requested) and by that vote not passing this morning. It is obvious that they can slow it down when they HAVE!


That is very interesting. Last night, I listened to the voice vote multiple times and thought I heard it was "not" 2/3rds in affirmative, tho the official record shows it otherwise.

Oh well, it ended up being "Yeas and Nays" vote today regardless.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## ziggy29

I have a feeling this one's going to be a vampire that won't die. I don't think the silver bullet or the wooden stake has been applied just yet.


----------



## Tom Robertson

ziggy29 said:


> I have a feeling this one's going to be a vampire that won't die. I don't think the silver bullet or the wooden stake has been applied just yet.


I have my cross, but don't have my garlic yet. I fear similarly...


----------



## HIPAR

They just need to get a bill to President Obama before Feb 17 .. Still lots of time.

--- CHAS


----------



## homeskillet

The CBS station in Kansas City is shutting down the analog on Feb. 17. It is expected the everybody else in Kansas City will follow.


----------



## Sirshagg

If this goes to a regular vote I don't think here is any question it will pass. The ONLY question I see is if the process can be help up or otherwise delayed for 20 days.


----------



## HDTVFreak07

kill that bill!!!
Kill that bill!!!
Kill that bill!!!


----------



## Dave

This is a link I have to show it is a no go for the bill.
www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/28/house-votes-delaying-digitial-tv-transition ( According to Fox news the bill is completely dead.)


----------



## Tom Robertson

From an article by Adrianne Kroepsch, CQPolitics


> Democratic leaders now will have to take the bill to the House Rules Committee to obtain a rule for debate, which would allow the measure to pass by a simple majority vote. Because the House is not in session for the rest of this week, that action is unlikely until next week.


More

(Which also points out that the Senate was a voice vote.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Mark Holtz

Until the bill has been shot with a silver bullet, then a wooden stake pounded in a carcus, a clove of garlic hung around it's neck, and sprinkled with holy water, the bill is still alive in my opinion. It may be on life support and fading fast, but it is still alive.


----------



## Tom Robertson

Dave said:


> This is a link I have to show it is a no go for the bill.
> www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/28/house-votes-delaying-digitial-tv-transition ( According to Fox news the bill is completely dead.)


That report seems to be incomplete as in fact the bill was not voted upon, but rather a motion to suspend the rules (and simultaneously pass the bill) failed.

The bill can still proceed via normal means.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## danallen

Millions have been spent in advertising, coupons and broadcast stations in the 2-17 conversion. No doubt, the number of those "in line' is over stated. I agree that there are some that want multiple coupons, including dealers that can then re-sell at full price but you would have to be a caveman not to have received the conversion date loud and clear. Please no e-mails from the cavemen on this!
The Senate bill was not mandatory for a delay anyway. The House delayed it to a mute point.


----------



## Tom Robertson

danallen said:


> Millions have been spent in advertising, coupons and broadcast stations in the 2-17 conversion. No doubt, the number of those "in line' is over stated. I agree that there are some that want multiple coupons, including dealers that can then re-sell at full price but you would have to be a caveman not to have received the conversion date loud and clear. Please no e-mails from the cavemen on this!
> The Senate bill was not mandatory for a delay anyway. The House delayed it to a mute point.


The cavemen are busy with Geico and likely will be thru the February 17th date, so you might be safe...


----------



## harsh

CyberTrip02 said:


> I was not expecting that to happen. Most of the brocasters were for the delay because it would allow them to have additional viewers for a bit longer thus increasing revenue streams from commercials.


I bet they'll get the same revenues whether they have an analog feed or not. Not having the analog feed saves them a lot of money; certainly enough to make up for a relatively small loss in audience.

I call baloney.


----------



## Tom Robertson

By the way, I thank everyone for keeping this thread so clean of political commentary and limited to the actions of the government. 

Thank you and keep up the great work!
Tom


----------



## ubankit

Paul Secic said:


> It's the NAB'S and stations fault. They should've aired PSAS on the hour and half hour since 2006.


In the Houston area, we've been blasted with the "dtv changeover--Feb 17th, are you ready" ads on all the local stations for the last 3 to 4 months. I actually think I've seen as many of these ads as political ads during the summer. I think what got peoples attention in our area was that the stations have been doing "tests" for a couple of minutes, dropping the analog signal, then the viewers who aren't ready get a blank screen during the test. Then, "doh" sets in, then panic. I guess it's human nature to procrastinate, the older I get, the more I seem to
My question is since the program is out of money for the coupons, what happened to all of the unredeemed/expired coupons? Where did that money disappear to? Maybe the "dtv transition dept" needs a bailout:lol:


----------



## danallen

But.... it clears the multiple frequencies that can hurt your OTA signal strength. With analog, digital, HD, AM and FM, cell and the like, I would think your reception will improve with only a digital transponder.


----------



## jpl

You didn't read what I wrote. I said apart from procedural measures like this, they can't slow down anything that the majority wants to get through. This is a special case. If the democrats wanted the bill to pass, there's not a darn thing the republicans could do, during normal debate, to slow this bill down. They couldn't filibuster it... they couldn't continue raising points of order... they couldn't even offer up amendments without the majority's ok. THAT'S what I was talking about. This is a special case - this is not normal legislative action - this type of thing is meant for emergency action by the Congress.


----------



## aa9vi

Less than 5% of viewers are "helped" by this proposed delay. Most people have cable or satellite. I don't know what the obsession is with prolonging this thing. Still, if you have OTA, many people have pointed out that for some time, you have been warned of Feb. 17th. This shouldn't be an issue. Who cares to take bets that a new bill will come up with a simple majority vote within the next 3 weeks? I'm saying 3:1 that one will. Sadly, this isn't dead... far from it.


----------



## harsh

danallen said:


> But.... it clears the multiple frequencies that can hurt your OTA signal strength. With analog, digital, HD, AM and FM, cell and the like, I would think your reception will improve with only a digital transponder.


Interference isn't much of an issue for the bulk of the population. The issue is more one of the government being able to collect on the millions that they auctioned off the freed up space for.

Any real wins will likely come when a station moves their digital signal down in frequency and thereby increases their coverage area.


----------



## robmadden1

http://tvdecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/house-defeats-bill-to-delay-digital-tv-switch/?hp


----------



## danallen

The KEY WORD is voluntary, the bad legislation would read MANDATORY. It does appear that PBS stations would be the only mandatory that would be affected for Security reasons. That being the case, only PBS would loose millions if the Bill passes from the Senate version.


----------



## giantsox

minorthr said:


> Again sucks to be them. They will figure it out when they turn their TVs on and they don't work. They have had plenty of time to simply stumble on to the info. Its not like last Tuesday we just suddenly decided that Feb 17th we are shutting the analog signals off.


Television is not a "right". People will figure it out very quickly when the TV's don't work. Priorities will then be sorted out. It will be time to decide if you want to go to the store and spend $50 to fix this the same day or wait for however long for a coupon so this costs only $10 to fix. What is the big deal?


----------



## Jason Nipp

Please remember that it is a forum rule violation to discuss politics on DBSTalk.

Having said that we are giving some leeway on the DTV delay...

Please do not stray off into other political comments. Violators will receive infractions and posts will be removed.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

giantsox said:


> Television is not a "right".


That's absolutely true. Before anyone else says it, the airwaves are a public trust, like a national park, and broadcasters are allowed to use them in a way that (nominally) benefits the public. However, it is neither implicit nor explicit that anyone has a right to a receiver.

I supported the coupon program because I felt it was an inexpensive way to jumpstart the HDTV adoption process. I have never believed, nor will I ever believe, that it is the right of the people to have free electronics handed to them. If it were, I'd be first in line


----------



## turey22

slow down on the typing? i cant refresh that fast LOL


----------



## scooper

This bill is NOT dead - just the fast tracking of it is (for this week).

The longer it takes to get through the House without changes, the more likely it is that it would be overcome by events / the calender. If they start making changes to the Senate bill - the longer it will take to become law and the more likely that it will die.

If it doesn't get signed by President Obama by 23:59:59 EST on Febuary 17, 2009, it is effectively DOA.


----------



## FTA Michael

Although I'd still prefer to get the transition over with, I just read a reason for the delay that's the best I've seen: It's easier to put a new antenna on your roof in spring and summer than it is in February. And the major networks are now in favor of the delay because their regular season will be over by then.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/01/27/arts/AP-Digital-Transition-Networks.html?_r=1

(My apologies if this is redundant; I couldn't bear to read the whole thread. )


----------



## kfcrosby

Cap'n Preshoot;1976494 said:


> It also wouldn't matter if it were postponed 4 months or 4 years, or 4 decades. There will always be that small percentage of people who still don't understand or will procrastinate indefinitely.


I couldn't agree more


----------



## James Long

scooper said:


> This bill is NOT dead - just the fast tracking of it is (for this week).
> 
> The longer it takes to get through the House without changes, the more likely it is that it would be overcome by events / the calender. If they start making changes to the Senate bill - the longer it will take to become law and the more likely that it will die.
> 
> If it doesn't get signed by President Obama by 23:59:59 EST on Febuary 17, 2009, it is effectively DOA.


The bill gives the FCC 30 days to create the rules needed to make this work. There is barely a time for a comment period let alone FCC action. The bill would have to be signed TODAY to have rules done by February 17th.

Just as we have argued what this means the FCC will open their process to comments. The current rules allow early analog shut off without permission in the last 90 days of analog operation but specifies dates last November through February 17th. This bill does NOT automatically change FCC rules ... those dates don't change until the FCC changes them.

If the law isn't passed until next week then the FCC will not have time to act. Even with Acting Commissioner Copps sharing the viewpoint that the transition delay is needed, completely scrapping the way the FCC makes rules to get this done by February 17th would not be a good thing.

Time is up. Do it, or let it die.


----------



## scooper

FTA Michael said:


> Although I'd still prefer to get the transition over with, I just read a reason for the delay that's the best I've seen: It's easier to put a new antenna on your roof in spring and summer than it is in February. And the major networks are now in favor of the delay because their regular season will be over by then.
> 
> Source: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/01/27/arts/AP-Digital-Transition-Networks.html?_r=1
> 
> (My apologies if this is redundant; I couldn't bear to read the whole thread. )


The Networks are NOT the stations...

And while I agree that Febuary is not the optimum time to be on a roof installing an antenna - that was pointed out when this date was selected. At this point, it is my opinion that it is better to go through with it and deal with the problems than to delay it.


----------



## LCDSpazz

Tick tock, tick tock. Every day that passes makes it more and more unrealistic to move the date. The reality is that the ones who wanted the delay now have the political cover they need. If the transition goes smoothly, everyone forgets about all this. Now if the transition goes badly, they can say they wanted to help but were stopped by "point finger at those who voted agaisnt the delay". This has always been as much about appearances as anything else.


----------



## TerpEE93

Cap'n Preshoot;1976494 said:


> It also wouldn't matter if it were postponed 4 months or 4 years, or 4 decades. There will always be that small percentage of people who still don't understand or will procrastinate indefinitely.


I'm not sure we can blame this all on procrastinators. As I recall, the fund for the converter coupons ran out because the Government underestimated how many folks still have one or more TV's that are OTA only -- no cable or dish connected. There is a backlog of millions of requests for converter coupons that have not been fulfilled because there's no money there. I think the delay was more about trying to clear that backlog than trying to appease procrastinators.


----------



## scooper

HDG said:


> But, but ... Isn't the delay being proposed because over 6 million folks want to buy a converter box but can't (for whatever reason)? That hardly sounds like people affected are not in the know.


There is nothing stopping those 6 million households from going out and buying a converter box, without government coupon.


----------



## MercurialIN

I just think the whole "delay" idea is totally ridiculous. There has been plenty of notice about the Feb. 17 switch, anyone who hasn't seen it must simply not be that interested in TV viewing in the first place.

If it does get delayed what makes it likely those same people who will not be ready by Feb. 17 will be ready by June? The entire delay idea makes absolutely no common sense to me. 


PS. I'm not saying this because Feb. 17 happens to be my birthday either


----------



## HDTVFreak07

FTA Michael said:


> Although I'd still prefer to get the transition over with, I just read a reason for the delay that's the best I've seen: It's easier to put a new antenna on your roof in spring and summer than it is in February. And the major networks are now in favor of the delay because their regular season will be over by then.
> 
> Source: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/01/27/arts/AP-Digital-Transition-Networks.html?_r=1
> 
> (My apologies if this is redundant; I couldn't bear to read the whole thread. )


Not a good reason. Millions have been warned for over a year and a half and action should have been taken when they KNEW winter would not be ideal. They knew about it in May, June, July, August, September and October, the typically ideal season to put antenna out or go buy one to put on their antenna. Instead, they sat on their phat lazy butts hoping for a miracle. Coupons? Lame excuse. They can scrounge up a few bucks to save little at a time and buy one. They're really inexpensive and I don't buy that people just didn't have the money, poor economy or not.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

scooper said:


> There is nothing stopping those 6 million households from going out and buying a converter box, without government coupon.


True indeed. They're only $49.99 at Best Buy, or put another way the cost of 10 cups of Starbucks or two trips to the manicurist.


----------



## davemayo

After reading this thread, I'm wishing I would have paid more attention to the School House Rock episode on how bills become laws....:eek2:


----------



## cartrivision

TerpEE93 said:


> I'm not sure we can blame this all on procrastinators. As I recall, the fund for the converter coupons ran out because the Government underestimated how many folks still have one or more TV's that are OTA only -- no cable or dish connected. There is a backlog of millions of requests for converter coupons that have not been fulfilled because there's no money there. I think the delay was more about trying to clear that backlog than trying to appease procrastinators.


We _can_ blame people's procrastination for them not having a coupon. The coupon giveaway started at the beginning of 2008 and the only people on the wait-list for coupons are people who didn't apply until sometime in January of 2009, a whole year after the start of the coupon program, and with only a matter of weeks remaining before the analog shutoff. The lack of a coupon at this point in time is clearly a problem that people for the most part brought on themselves through procrastination.


----------



## cartrivision

Does anyone have a link or info on the history of the delays in this analog shutdown? I know that this latest attempt wouldn't have been the first (or even second) time that the analogue shutdown was delayed.


----------



## HIPAR

The proponents really goofed on this one. Why did they go for a two thirds majority suspended rules vote unless they were sure they had the votes for passage? Were there last moment defectors?

--- CHAS


----------



## Upstream

FTA Michael said:


> I just read a reason for the delay that's the best I've seen: It's easier to put a new antenna on your roof in spring and summer than it is in February.


Why would you have to put a new antenna on your roof?

If you rely on OTA television, you already have an antenna. If you don't rely on OTA television, you don't need an antenna.

I suppose there are a handful of people who only have VHF or UHF antennas, and now need to add the other. But most cities in the country have had both VHF and UHF analog transmissions, so anyone who was relying on OTA television for analog, would already have a VHF/UHF antenna.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Upstream, I agree with you in principle but there is a small percentage of those who have antennas that may not only be the wrong type but may also be poorly aimed or have other problems. While the theory was that digital would have better propagation, that's not always the case. I know of at least one person who is able to get reception (albeit poor) from 70 miles in analog but is not able to get digital reception from the same distance without using a larger antenna. 

I'm not suggesting we cowtow to these people in any way, only saying that of the (admittedly small) number who have not dealt with this yet, there is an (admittedly smaller) subset who will need to make changes to their antennas.


----------



## cartrivision

HIPAR said:


> The proponents really goofed on this one. Why did they go for a two thirds majority suspended rules vote unless they were sure they had the votes for passage? Were there last moment defectors?
> 
> --- CHAS


As someone else alluded to, for the politicians, having the cover with their constituents of being able to say that they voted for the delay is just as good for them (the politicians) as an actual delay.... probably better, considering that the proponents will then get all the benefits of supporting a delay plus the ability to do finger pointing at those who opposed the delay, and by not forcing the issue any further, the delay proponents can also reap the benefits of no delay happening. It's a win, win, win situation for the supposed "losers" in the battle.


----------



## HDTVFreak07

Upstream said:


> Why would you have to put a new antenna on your roof?
> 
> If you rely on OTA television, you already have an antenna. If you don't rely on OTA television, you don't need an antenna.
> 
> I suppose there are a handful of people who only have VHF or UHF antennas, and now need to add the other. But most cities in the country have had both VHF and UHF analog transmissions, so anyone who was relying on OTA television for analog, would already have a VHF/UHF antenna.


You're EXACTLY right!! Thanks for pointing out the obvious.


----------



## RobertE

FTA Michael said:


> Although I'd still prefer to get the transition over with, I just read a reason for the delay that's the best I've seen: It's easier to put a new antenna on your roof in spring and summer than it is in February. And the major networks are now in favor of the delay because their regular season will be over by then.
> 
> Source: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/01/27/arts/AP-Digital-Transition-Networks.html?_r=1
> 
> (My apologies if this is redundant; I couldn't bear to read the whole thread. )


Winter conditions don't stop DirecTv and Dish from doing installations new customers.


----------



## Tim Petlock

Two simple words for those who didn't figure out the DTV transition - Library Card.

Nearly every federal dollar spent on converter boxes goes abroad anyway - are there any that are truly assembled in the USA? I'm all for inclusiveness but by the time we put off the DTV transition there will be millions homeless or evicted. I cannot believe congress would waste time on this.

It should have been scheduled to be switched off precisely seven days before the super bowl. There would still be those who miss out, but many of those six million would have suddenly had a big motivation.

Yes - I sound a bit heartless. Being unemployed for two months will do that for ya.


----------



## Mark Holtz

The only reason why this is a issue is that Obama raised the issue at the beginning of January.

:blink:

There is a old saying, "Lack of planning on your part does NOT constitute an emergency on my part." The congress people are not aware of the logistics when you change the date so close to a established deadline. There are stations which are dependent on other stations for equipment and frequency changes for non-interference. Look at the headaches that the Denver stations encountered when trying to construct new towers due to the NIMBYs. You cannot establish contracts to construct/tear down towers, then, with construction less than 30 days away, "Sorry, we've decided to postpone." IT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY. We even have problems evacuating an entire city within two days due to a hurricane, and that is with established evacuation plans in place.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

It seems this is a Squeaky Wheel issue with enough grease in place to make it to the station.


----------



## cartrivision

RobertE said:


> Winter conditions don't stop DirecTv and Dish from doing installations new customers.


Exactly. While the numbers will likely be pretty small, some percentage of the remaining analog-only households will become DirecTV households because of the analog shutdown, so I say shut-em-down, sooner than later.


----------



## ziggy29

RobertE said:


> Winter conditions don't stop DirecTv and Dish from doing installations new customers.


True. But while I hope this doesn't get delayed, I don't think we can compare an experienced professional with professional equipment and safety training to a novice DIYer with a ladder, a wrench and only half a clue.


----------



## HersheyBud

Stuart Sweet said:


> True indeed. They're only $49.99 at Best Buy, or put another way the cost of 10 cups of Starbucks or two trips to the manicurist.


LOL Stuart. How many people here would know how many trips to the Manucurist would come to $49? I'll have to check my nails...


----------



## ziggy29

HersheyBud said:


> LOL Stuart. How many people here would know how many trips to the Manucurist would come to $49? I'll have to check my nails...


Out here in the boonies it's $19 (probably $15 plus tip). I know because I put all of our financial activities into Quicken and I see the occasional $19 check written by my wife to her manicurist.


----------



## rhipps

We RVers are probably one of the largest OTA user groups in the CONUS since EVERY motorhome/travel trailer I am familiar with has an OTA (most of which are the Weingard bowtie variety). Everyone I know has dealt with it long ago by either getting a converter box and/or new TV with an ATSC tuner. And most of us are seniors. So WHO ARE the dummies who have sat on their butts and done nothing to help themselves? I will leave the answer to your imagination, gentle reader.


----------



## Tom Robertson

HDTVFreak07 said:


> Not a good reason. Millions have been warned for over a year and a half and action should have been taken when they KNEW winter would not be ideal. They knew about it in May, June, July, August, September and October, the typically ideal season to put antenna out or go buy one to put on their antenna. Instead, they sat on their phat lazy butts hoping for a miracle. Coupons? Lame excuse. They can scrounge up a few bucks to save little at a time and buy one. They're really inexpensive and I don't buy that people just didn't have the money, poor economy or not.


Recall that the heavy advertising and promotions did not start until in the fall. Very little time for some people to think and react before bad winter set in.

And RobertE... Would you put a dish on a 40' mast on top of an icy roof?  Dishes can go low (some/most of the time. Long distance OTA antennas need to go high.)

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Grentz

This whole thing has already been delayed once, I just wish they could get it over with already. There are so many reasons not to extend it and so few to extend it IMO.

O well, we shall see I guess.

On the distance thing, is it not true that once analog goes off the digital transmitters will be ramped up a bit to increase reception? That is what I heard numerous times from people and it seems logical.


----------



## Tom Robertson

Grentz said:


> This whole thing has already been delayed once, I just wish they could get it over with already. There are so many reasons not to extend it and so few to extend it IMO.
> 
> O well, we shall see I guess.
> 
> On the distance thing, is it not true that once analog goes off the digital transmitters will be ramped up a bit to increase reception? That is what I heard numerous times from people and it seems logical.


In some places it is true that the stations will broadcast on more power in the future. (I won't give a date at this point.) 

The key is if they are causing interference to existing analog stations. If they might be, the are likely at reduced power. Or if they are going to shift to another frequency, they might be.

But in areas with no interference, a station that isn't shifting is likely at full power now.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## mreposter

rhipps said:


> We RVers are probably one of the largest OTA user groups in the CONUS since EVERY motorhome/travel trailer I am familiar with has an OTA (most of which are the Weingard bowtie variety). Everyone I know has dealt with it long ago by either getting a converter box and/or new TV with an ATSC tuner. And most of us are seniors. So WHO ARE the dummies who have sat on their butts and done nothing to help themselves? I will leave the answer to your imagination, gentle reader.


The reports I've seen (please don't ask me for URLs...) are that the "unprepared" fall into three sometimes overlapping categories: senior citizens, the poor, and those in rural areas. While I buy some of this, we can all agree that you're never going to get 100% conversion ahead of time. I also suspect that a large number of the TVs not ready are secondary sets in homes where the primary TV is on cable or D/E*.

On I side note, I suspect that in about a month Goodwill is gonna be flooded with old analog TVs.


----------



## Tom Robertson

mreposter said:


> The reports I've seen (please don't ask me for URLs...) are that the "unprepared" fall into three sometimes overlapping categories: senior citizens, the poor, and those in rural areas. While I buy some of this, we can all agree that you're never going to get 100% conversion ahead of time. I also suspect that a large number of the TVs not ready are secondary sets in homes where the primary TV is on cable or D/E*.
> 
> On I side note, I suspect that in about a month Goodwill is gonna be flooded with old analog TVs.


James Long posted the stats on the top DMAs and houses without any preparations vs. partial preparations. (Sad to see that Salt Lake was higher than I expected, but many in this DMA are really served via translator stations that possibly won't switch immediately.)

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## RobertE

Tom Robertson said:


> Recall that the heavy advertising and promotions did not start until in the fall. Very little time for some people to think and react before bad winter set in.
> 
> And RobertE... Would you put a dish on a 40' mast on top of an icy roof?  Dishes can go low (some/most of the time. Long distance OTA antennas need to go high.)
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


If thats where its gotta go, its where its gotta go. Been there done that.


----------



## Tom Robertson

The House will adjourn until Friday morning. (Unless a message from the Senate regarding another bill is received.)


----------



## Bobby H

To me, the lead up to this February 17 deadline reminds me of how so many people behave regarding Tax Day. Lots of people wait until the last minute to file their taxes, even when they know they may be waiting in super long lines at the post office or dealing with all sorts of other headaches. I even know people who have waited until April 15 to file their taxes even though they knew they were getting a refund. They procrastinate on filling out the forms, even when they know they're going to get some money because the paperwork process seems like "homework" to them.

It takes some effort for people to go through the process of getting those converter box coupons. Maybe some of those affected viewers don't want to deal with the bureaucratic hassle.

I think a lot of people are going to wait until the last minute regardless of whether the deadline is 2/17 or 6/12. When the deadline passes I think we'll see a lot of people merely spending $50 for the converter boxes just to be done with it.

I'm hoping this DTV Delay bill doesn't make it back to the floor of the House of Representatives for a vote. By the time they manage to do that the February 17 deadline will be just 2 weeks in the future. That's far too little time to suddenly change plans.

Local TV stations have to proceed as if the February 17 deadline is not going to change. More than a few are already so far along with their plans that they at least need the option of shutting off the analog signal after the original deadline.

I heard one claim in another forum that TV stations have budgeted running both DTV and analog signals for all of 2009. Even if the claim was true the current, sorry state of our economy and declining TV ad revenues have cut that budget plan to shreds.



cartrivision said:


> Does anyone have a link or info on the history of the delays in this analog shutdown? I know that this latest attempt wouldn't have been the first (or even second) time that the analogue shutdown was delayed.


May of 2006 was the previous analog signal shut off deadline. But that was pushed to 2/17/09 by a bill passed in 2005. I think that May 2006 deadline was set in the mid 1990s as a 10 year long transition period from the time when major networks began to deliver OTA HD broadcasts.



Grentz said:


> On the distance thing, is it not true that once analog goes off the digital transmitters will be ramped up a bit to increase reception? That is what I heard numerous times from people and it seems logical.


Many DTV signals are currently being broadcast at low power for 2 reasons. 1: avoiding signal interference with neighboring analog channels. 2: saving money on power costs.

Once a TV station's DTV signal goes to full power it should yield a very noticeable difference on reception quality and stability as well as ability to receive the signal at significantly farther distances. I never could get good reception of our NBC affiliate's analog OTA signal, but I'm getting excellent reception of their full power DTV signal.


----------



## Tom Robertson

The message from the Senate has arrived, concurring to the House Concurrent Resolution 26: Adjourn until 2pm EST on Monday Feb 2. (Glad I poked to find that resolution when the Senate concurred.) 

The Thomas page: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2009_record&page=H543&position=all


----------



## James Long

Bobby H said:


> To me, the lead up to this February 17 deadline reminds me of how so many people behave regarding Tax Day.


It reminds me of part of last night's debate:
*Mr. SHIMKUS.*
What I did today was I asked when was income tax day enacted into law, 1955. Everyone knows April 15 is the day you pay your taxes. Guess how many people we had not pay their taxes on April 15 last year, 12 million people, advertised, historic, annual.​12 million people don't pay their taxes on time ... under 6 million households are not ready for the digital transition. Let's delay tax day until more people are ready.


----------



## normang

James Long said:


> 12 million people don't pay their taxes on time ... under 6 million households are not ready for the digital transition. Let's delay tax day until more people are ready.


That works for me... We'd never have to pay taxes again...


----------



## CyberTrip02

HDG said:


> But, but ... Isn't the delay being proposed because over 6 million folks want to buy a converter box but can't (for whatever reason)? That hardly sounds like people affected are not in the know.


6 million people.... Those statistics are blown way out of proportion. Besides, 6 million is only 2% of the population of the US.... There's nothing that can be done about it. When people lose their stations they will complain and then they will buy converter boxes. The solution here is to let the issue fix itself.


----------



## Tom Robertson

CyberTrip02 said:


> 6 million people.... Those statistics are blown way out of proportion. Besides, 6 million is only 2% of the population of the US.... There's nothing that can be done about it. When people lose their stations they will complain and then they will buy converter boxes. The solution here is to let the issue fix itself.


I believe the figure is 6 million households or about 6%. (rough math.)


----------



## robmadden1

*House Republicans shoot down a four-month delay in the DTV switchover*

But some GOP leaders like Joe Barton of Texas and Cliff Stearns of Florida write Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi with their own proposal for an alternative - which they say parallels what Capitol Hill leaders worked on before the Obama Administration threw its own recommendation into the process. The Senate passed a delay bill - unanimously - but the House today failed to approve the same bill by at least a two-thirds majority. The vote was 258 to 168. Some opponents were worried about confusion among the millions of Americans who still take their television signals off the air, and haven't yet bought a DTV converter or a compatible new TV set. The FCC is now talking about a massive program of public service announcements, which will likely include radio, to get the word about the February 17 DTV switchover from analog to digital.

http://www.radio-info.com/sections/...down-a-four-month-delay-in-the-dtv-switchover


----------



## Mightyram

Tom Robertson said:


> In some places it is true that the stations will broadcast on more power in the future. (I won't give a date at this point.)
> 
> The key is if they are causing interference to existing analog stations. If they might be, the are likely at reduced power. Or if they are going to shift to another frequency, they might be.
> 
> But in areas with no interference, a station that isn't shifting is likely at full power now.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Actually some stations are broadcasting analog and digital from the same tower with digital signal at a lower power. This is because there can be only be so much effective radiated power from the antenna per FCC regulations. Once the Analog shuts off then they can increase the power to the digital signal.

EDIT: Also, the height of the antenna determines how much power is allowed to be used...the higher the antenna the lower the ERP - effective radiated power around the base of the tower.

"Biological effects can result from exposure to RF energy. Biological effects that result from heating of tissue by RF energy are often referred to as "thermal" effects. It has been known for many years that exposure to very high levels of RF radiation can be harmful due to the ability of RF energy to heat biological tissue rapidly. This is the principle by which microwave ovens cook food."

http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/rf-faqs.html


----------



## James Long

Only 3.2 million on the wait list (up from 2.5 million last week).
21.7 million redeemed, 10.9 million outstanding, 14.3 million expired.
(20.7, 11.7 and 14.0 million last week, respectively.)

1 million redeemed this week and only 300k more expired.
Freeing up the wait list and reissuing expired coupons would be enough.


----------



## the_batman

If TV is that important then spend the $40. Less then 50 cents a week since this was announced.


----------



## samhevener

"It's not over until it's over." Quote from a famous American.


----------



## James Long

Or perhaps "If you don't know where you are going, you might wind up someplace else."

I believe that is where Rockefeller/Wexler are going. Somewhere else than they say they are going.

"The other teams could make trouble for us if they win." and
"You wouldn't have won if we'd beaten you." are also good.


----------



## Pepster

robmadden1 said:


> *House Republicans shoot down a four-month delay in the DTV switchover*
> 
> But some GOP leaders like Joe Barton of Texas and Cliff Stearns of Florida write Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi with their own proposal for an alternative - which they say parallels what Capitol Hill leaders worked on before the Obama Administration threw its own recommendation into the process. The Senate passed a delay bill - unanimously - but the House today failed to approve the same bill by at least a two-thirds majority. The vote was 258 to 168. Some opponents were worried about confusion among the millions of Americans who still take their television signals off the air, and haven't yet bought a DTV converter or a compatible new TV set. The FCC is now talking about a massive program of public service announcements, which will likely include radio, to get the word about the February 17 DTV switchover from analog to digital.
> 
> http://www.radio-info.com/sections/...down-a-four-month-delay-in-the-dtv-switchover


I see this article on the tvpredictions website this morning.

http://www.tvpredictions.com/housedtv012909.htm

I hope not. I'd rather see it just be done & over with.


----------



## thomas_d92

Here in Fresno,Ca. NBC and PBS stations are turning off Feb.17 and other stations may follow even if extension is passed.. They claim excessive power bills for running 2 transmitters.


----------



## johnp37

the_batman said:


> If TV is that important then spend the $40. Less then 50 cents a week since this was announced.


 Good point. The transition has saturated the airwaves for months now, and if there are people out there that have not gotten the message, they have not been watching tv anyway so let's get this DONE!


----------



## txtommy

'When you come to the fork in the road, take it."


----------



## jpl

Pepster said:


> I see this article on the tvpredictions website this morning.
> 
> http://www.tvpredictions.com/housedtv012909.htm
> 
> I hope not. I'd rather see it just be done & over with.


I just don't think this is going to happen. While Swanni is right that the majority party in congress wouldn't want to hand their president a defeat, there's a more powerful motivator - self-preservation. I just think it would look really ridiculous, and wasteful, to see members of Congress debate something like this. It would just LOOK politically motivated to have a debate 2 weeks before the transition was set to happen. I think it would make those pushing for this look, frankly, politically motivated. I just don't see how having that debate makes them look good on this. Get a couple republicans up there pointing out the obvious flaws in this bill (the fact that it leaves stations on their own to decide whether to shut off their analogs on the 17th or not... the fact that part of the spectrum has already been sold off... the cost to TV stations for maintaining two different feeds) and the public starts wondering why in the world Congress would waste time on something like this at this point. Again, I'm not trying to get political about this - but this is a political issue. Whether this bill is doable or not is really not the point. Swanni's right in that it IS doable. Politically, though, it's not viable.


----------



## HIPAR

txtommy said:


> 'When you come to the fork in the road, take it."


Or is it something like this:

"Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?"
"That depends a good deal on where you want to get to," said the Cat.
"I don't much care where--" said Alice.
"Then it doesn't matter which way you go," said the Cat.
"--so long as I get SOMEWHERE," Alice added as an explanation.
"Oh, you're sure to do that," said the Cat, "if you only walk long enough."

--- CHAS


----------



## harsh

Something that the coupon advocates may not have considered: the darn things expire. Many early coupon grabbers had no desirable options and they aren't eligible under the current plan to get new coupons.


----------



## jefbal99

harsh said:


> Something that the coupon advocates may not have considered: the darn things expire. Many early coupon grabbers had no desirable options and they aren't eligible under the current plan to get new coupons.


That's what happened to me, i got the coupons but there weren't any boxes available in my area that were eligible.


----------



## Doug Brott

harsh said:


> Something that the coupon advocates may not have considered: the darn things expire. Many early coupon grabbers had no desirable options and they aren't eligible under the current plan to get new coupons.


Or perhaps some folks simply got the coupons because the could and then realized (or decided) to not use them.


----------



## Mark Holtz

What I found interesting was that the coupons could ONLY be used for the converter boxes, and could NOT be applied to a purchase of a TV with a ATSC tuner. Of course, the electronics retailers are more interested in selling you a new TV than a converter box.


----------



## bobukcat

Doug Brott said:


> Or perhaps some folks simply got the coupons because the could and then realized (or decided) to not use them.


I ordered two of them even though I personally knew I wouldn't need either. I then checked the setups of everyone of my technically challenged family and friends and figured out one of my brothers needed one. I used that one to get him squared away and the other expired as I saw no need to have a converter box setting around collecting dust.

BTW - there has been an ample supply of converters available around here for many months.


----------



## tnsprin

ubankit said:


> ...
> My question is since the program is out of money for the coupons, what happened to all of the unredeemed/expired coupons? Where did that money disappear to? Maybe the "dtv transition dept" needs a bailout:lol:


For recent numbers see http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=1977369&postcount=129

The fund is not out of money. If all the currently valid coupons are redeemed it runs out of money. A part of the problem has been the delay between expiration and time to redeem the coupon (you must buy before the coupon expires and then there is some additional time before the coupon gets recorded as redeemed). Until that time limit is reached they don't release the funds for new coupons for those in the waiting queue.

I, for one, don't want to see them delay the transition. If they really feel they must they could pass some additional contingency funding to allow the release of more coupons.


----------



## msmith

Apparently, there's another problem - installation assistance.

The FCC has requested that the ARRL (ham radio association) nationally encourage its local clubs to hold programs on the transition. Our club did - the local papers failed to pick up the press release so we got no public attending (just us hams). It was a good program with a demonstration of analog, a converter box, and an ATSC TV.

Then I got a request from the local FCC (via a ham radio club) for people to volunteer to assist the City of Philadelphia with converter box installations. The idea was to come down and be paired with a city volunteer (who has less technical training) to go to the homes of people and install the boxes they already own. Those residents would request the installation via the 311 telephone system. I'm out of work so I agreed to volunteer for a day or two.

I got a call yesterday at noon from the Philly person. She wanted me to attend a training session at 1pm today, and then work 5 days a week doing 4 installations a day for a stipend of $100 per week. When I explained that I was only volunteering for one or two days total (and didn't care about that small amount of money), she wanted me to show up for training anyway. I live 20 miles away outside Trenton - $20 per day wouldn't even cover my parking in Philadelphia.

I sent an e-mail to the FCC employee who recruited me and he agreed that the time commitment was too much. So I'm not going to the training today. If they still want the help they can call back and we'll work out a one or two day schedule.


----------



## leww37334

wow, installation assistance 

1. unscrew coax from back of tv
2. screw coax into DTV box input
3. take new coax, screw one end into tv (where old coax was)
4. screw other end into output of DTV box.


perhaps the nanny state could require the dtv box to come with one of the coaxes already screwed on this would eliminate step 3.


now if you need antenna assistance, you need to see the broadcast stations who used the DTV transition as an excuse to change from UHF to VHF or VHF to UHF.

Training is over, who do I see in the government to collect my fee for providing training?


----------



## samhevener

James Long said:


> Or perhaps "If you don't know where you are going, you might wind up someplace else."
> 
> I believe that is where Rockefeller/Wexler are going. Somewhere else than they say they are going.
> 
> "The other teams could make trouble for us if they win." and
> "You wouldn't have won if we'd beaten you." are also good.


Good ones James, they all sound good to me.


----------



## msmith

A correction.

I spoke to them today and they can handle me helping just a few days. So I will be going to the training.

They're also providing transportation reimbursement.


----------



## GutBomb

leww37334 said:


> wow, installation assistance
> 
> 1. unscrew coax from back of tv
> 2. screw coax into DTV box input
> 3. take new coax, screw one end into tv (where old coax was)
> 4. screw other end into output of DTV box.
> 
> perhaps the nanny state could require the dtv box to come with one of the coaxes already screwed on this would eliminate step 3.
> 
> now if you need antenna assistance, you need to see the broadcast stations who used the DTV transition as an excuse to change from UHF to VHF or VHF to UHF.
> 
> Training is over, who do I see in the government to collect my fee for providing training?


That's kind of the point. My mom's not gonna know what "coax" is. And if there's more than one coaxial input on her TV she's not going to know where to put it. She's also equally clueless to what VHF and UHF are. Just wait until she starts scanning for channels (if she can get that far on her own). I'm already going to have to walk her through it when the frequency assignment changes happen.

I set her up so she's fine, but spouting off terms at people who are non-technical does nothing but confuse the situation for them.


----------



## Sirshagg

leww37334 said:


> wow, installation assistance
> 
> 1. unscrew coax from back of tv
> 2. screw coax into DTV box input
> 3. take new coax, screw one end into tv (where old coax was)
> 4. screw other end into output of DTV box.


Question #1 - What's a coax?


----------



## Stuart Sweet

If you're on OTA, it's the one wire going into your TV that isn't the power plug.


----------



## Sirshagg

Stuart Sweet said:


> If you're on OTA, it's the one wire going into your TV that isn't the power plug.


Really? What about the VCR?


----------



## msmith

leww37334 said:


> wow, installation assistance
> 
> 1. unscrew coax from back of tv
> 2. screw coax into DTV box input
> 3. take new coax, screw one end into tv (where old coax was)
> 4. screw other end into output of DTV box.
> 
> perhaps the nanny state could require the dtv box to come with one of the coaxes already screwed on this would eliminate step 3.
> 
> now if you need antenna assistance, you need to see the broadcast stations who used the DTV transition as an excuse to change from UHF to VHF or VHF to UHF.
> 
> Training is over, who do I see in the government to collect my fee for providing training?


You want $20 for four of those sessions? That's what they're paying.

I think we're going to have to teach the users how to re-scan, because we have several stations changing frequency on cutover day. One is going from UHF back to it's analog channel 6.


----------



## giantsox

Sirshagg said:


> Really? What about the VCR?


The VCR? I'm pretty sure thats the rectangular box that has been flashing 12:00 for the last 20 years.


----------



## James Long

Fun ... but let's stay on topic as much as possible. 

:backtotop


----------



## CyberTrip02

Tom Robertson said:


> I believe the figure is 6 million households or about 6%. (rough math.)


Well considering the US population is around 305 million I would say 2% is roughly correct. 6% would be right around 18 million.


----------



## James Long

CyberTrip02 said:


> Well considering the US population is around 305 million I would say 2% is roughly correct. 6% would be right around 18 million.


Don't confuse *households* with *people*. The Nielson numbers being quoted are households.


----------



## kariato

I use OTA HD for all my HD DVR's at home since I live in an area not served yet by dish HD lil and the problem is not just putting a converter box before your coax input vcr or tv. The real problem is the antenna. I've picked up a OTA signal before with a coat hanger and alot of people watch OTA probably have poor or even regular antenna's which worked with NTSC. Finding the right antenna for your ATSC signal can be a real problem even if you got to the web site to look up which type you need. Not the first antenna you buy will work. You really need a voucher for new antenna alot of the time. Alot of people will fall off the digital cliff rather than not have a converter box.


----------



## the_batman

Can I have a voucher to defer the cost of my DirecTV?


----------



## Doug Brott

the_batman said:


> Can I have a voucher to defer the cost of my DirecTV?


Now, and that's not what this thread is about ..


----------



## Cholly

kariato said:


> I use OTA HD for all my HD DVR's at home since I live in an area not served yet by dish HD lil and the problem is not just putting a converter box before your coax input vcr or tv. The real problem is the antenna. I've picked up a OTA signal before with a coat hanger and alot of people watch OTA probably have poor or even regular antenna's which worked with NTSC. Finding the right antenna for your ATSC signal can be a real problem even if you got to the web site to look up which type you need. Not the first antenna you buy will work. You really need a voucher for new antenna alot of the time. Alot of people will fall off the digital cliff rather than not have a converter box.


Not wishing to beat a dead horse, but there is no such thing as an ATSC or HDTV antenna, despite the hype you see on antenna packages. That being said, there is a strong possibility that people who have gotten a usable picture on an analog TV with an existing antenna will not get one at all with a digital signal on the same TV with a converter box, or for that matter, with a new digital TV.
(By the way, *all TV's 13" and up currently on the market have ATSC tuners.*) These people are left with two options: get a satisfactory antenna or subscribe to a pay TV service.
Tell all this to an elderly widow (or to anyone not technically inclined), to whom a TV remote is a "clicker" and is totally at a loss when it comes to the antenna mystique. 
Although Thomas Jefferson said, "Delay is preferable to error", in this case, delaying the changeover is an error, despite the good intentions of the president, congress and Consumers Union in promoting the delay.


----------



## Tom Robertson

Installation issues:
Coax... Huh? what's that
Diplex cables (anyone else remember that stuff?)
Baluns... (nope, they ain't them helium thingies at parties)

This is not trivial to everyone so please be kind...


----------



## dave1234

Portland, Oregon stations have annouced they are making the transistion on the 17th regardless of what congress does.

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2009/01/opb_others_commit_to_digital_t.html


----------



## SParker

I got this email from my local station after I sent an email urging them to switch on the 17th.
----------------------
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us. The House rejected the DTV delay bill yesterday. The House will probably hold a revote next week. We'll announce our plans if the bill is approved.

Janet Mason
WZZM 13
President & General Manager
Grand Rapids, MI
---------------------

My guess is she means if it passes they will go ahead anyways, just my gut feeling.


----------



## Herdfan

So what happens when Congress gets wind of all these stations killing analog on 2/17 despite their efforts to delay the transition?

I see them getting mad and writing in a new clause that prohibits early transition. These stations need to keep their mouths shut.


----------



## ibooksrule

Sirshagg said:


> Really? What about the VCR?


Who still has a VCR in 2009? That was dead years ago. Oh wait my mom still has a VCR and laughs at me because she says well what if you want to watch a tape.

I really dont understand people having a VCR in 2009. They dont make tapes any more they dont produce anything on VHS anymore either.

I think it was a waste of money for the GOVT to provide these coupons anyway. Why should they pay for it? I mean its what $40 for one of these things. And very few people do not have at least satellite or cable anymore. 
We are such a nanny state. Everyone thinks that because the technology is changing the govt should provide coupons for converter boxes


----------



## jodavis

ibooksrule said:


> Who still has a VCR in 2009? That was dead years ago. Oh wait my mom still has a VCR and laughs at me because she says well what if you want to watch a tape.
> 
> I really dont understand people having a VCR in 2009. They dont make tapes any more they dont produce anything on VHS anymore either.
> 
> I think it was a waste of money for the GOVT to provide these coupons anyway. Why should they pay for it? I mean its what $40 for one of these things. And very few people do not have at least satellite or cable anymore.
> We are such a nanny state. Everyone thinks that because the technology is changing the govt should provide coupons for converter boxes


I saw just the other day where they just killed laserdisc, I think VHS will be around for quite a while. On the DTV transition no matter how long you wait some people won't be ready. I know lots of people who have no idea what an OTA is or what UHF/VHF mean but I don't know anybody who doesn't have a "nerd" that they call when something happens to their TV. Flip the switch and people will figure it out.


----------



## James Long

Herdfan said:


> So what happens when Congress gets wind of all these stations killing analog on 2/17 despite their efforts to delay the transition?
> 
> I see them getting mad and writing in a new clause that prohibits early transition. These stations need to keep their mouths shut.


Congress needs to get it in the bill NOW if they expect to prohibit transition under existing rules. The existing rules allow shutdown with 30 day notification any time in the last 90 days of analog (started Nov 19th). No permission required, just tell the FCC why analog is being disabled. (Financial concerns and clearing channels for digital transition are good reasons.) A June 12th date creates an odd window in March where we will no longer be within 90 days of transition ... it is up to the FCC what they do with the sketchy language in the current bill. They will have 30 days after the law is signed by Obama to write new rules. That includes a comment period where stations will be able to express their influence.



ibooksrule said:


> Who still has a VCR in 2009? That was dead years ago. Oh wait my mom still has a VCR and laughs at me because she says well what if you want to watch a tape.


I used a VCR to record an analog test a couple of days ago. The primary DVR doesn't receive analog channels.


----------



## msmith

To clarify:

The Philadelphia program is one of only 12 in the country with grants from the FCC, and the only one for a city.

There are three parts:

1. The Philadelphia 311 (like 911 for city services) will be trained to assist callers with converter box installation.
2. Several community centers around the city will have a demonstration setup staffed to show people how to set up their converter box at home.
3. For low income, disabled and elderly, the installation teams will go to their homes and install up to 2 converter boxes (that the resident bought themselves) provided that they do not receive TV via cable or satellite and don't already have a converter box working.

One tricky thing will be training the user to re-scan when the channels move on 2/18 or whenever it happens.


----------



## dennispap

Herdfan said:


> So what happens when Congress gets wind of all these stations killing analog on 2/17 despite their efforts to delay the transition?
> 
> I see them getting mad and writing in a new clause that prohibits early transition. These stations need to keep their mouths shut.


Several stations have already shut down their analog feed and disabled portions of that equipment. I dont think they will put in a clause making for mandatory analog, when some stations now dont have the ability to do analog, especially when the govt is changing the rules at the last minute.


----------



## Geronimo

I do want to commend the site for getting the headline correct. Almost everywhere it is being reported that the House defeated the bill which is not quite what happened.

I am not for an extension but there are already efforts uderway to schedule another vote. We will see what happens.


----------



## Tom Robertson

Geronimo said:


> I do want to commend the site for getting the headline correct. Almost everywhere it is being reported that the House defeated the bill which is not quite what happened.
> 
> I am not for an extension but there are already efforts uderway to schedule another vote. We will see what happens.


Thank you.


----------



## scooper

What got defeated was the fast track vote so the bill could sail through without going to committee, and House debate. We think we have this one right


----------



## James Long

scooper said:


> What got defeated was the fast track vote so the bill could sail through without going to committee, and House debate. We think we have this one right


The funny thing is that Geronimo asked the question just as I was working on shortening the title. Still accurate?


----------



## scooper

James Long said:


> The funny thing is that Geronimo asked the question just as I was working on shortening the title. Still accurate?


Close enough 

I agree with your edit. Is that good enough ?


----------



## fluffybear

scooper said:


> What got defeated was the fast track vote so the bill could sail through without going to committee, and House debate. We think we have this one right


If I remember my Government class correctly (been 20+ years so I am probably wrong) but if this bill gets through committee and gets back to the house floor in time, all it would take to throw a wrench in the works is someone throwing a rider on to it. The bill would then go back to Senate for a new vote..


----------



## scooper

fluffybear said:


> If I remember my Government class correctly (been 20+ years so I am probably wrong) but if this bill gets through committee and gets back to the house floor in time, all it would take to throw a wrench in the works is someone throwing a rider on to it. The bill would then go back to Senate for a new vote..


That would be MY understanding of the situation...
And it's been longer than that for me...


----------



## CliffV

Upstream said:


> Why would you have to put a new antenna on your roof?
> 
> If you rely on OTA television, you already have an antenna. If you don't rely on OTA television, you don't need an antenna.
> 
> I suppose there are a handful of people who only have VHF or UHF antennas, and now need to add the other. But most cities in the country have had both VHF and UHF analog transmissions, so anyone who was relying on OTA television for analog, would already have a VHF/UHF antenna.


Last summer I e-mailed my sister to see if she was ready for the transition. I knew she couldn't hook up a converter box, because last year I had to hook up a DVD player for her.

She ran her TV off a set of VHF rabbit ears and her Portland stations would require UHF also. We emailed back and forth a couple of times and it was clear that she was confused. Finally (after a 2 week pause), she e-mailed me that she picked up basic cable for $10 a month. That sounded like a desperation move to me.

I suspect there are a lot of confused people out there.


----------



## James Long

New senate bill, new thread ...
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=151219


----------



## Tom Robertson

An educational note explaining why the first Senate bill is completely dead in the House, why suspension of House Rules was required, and therefore why a new bill was required (or an amendment would be necessary.)

House Rules require "Pay as You Go". The DTV Delay bills intend to expend monies in the converter coupon program, which requires some form of "how we gonna pay for it" in the House. Hence the required suspension of rules. Not just for fast-tracking as I had originally thought.

The new bill makes it clear that the coupon section of the bill will not take affect until subsequent legislature authorizes the expenditures:


> (d) Condition of Modifications- The amendments made by this section shall not take effect until the enactment of additional budget authority after the date of enactment of this Act to carry out the analog-to-digital converter box program under section 3005 of the Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005.


Carry on in the other thread,
Tom


----------

