Blame Granny if your Favorite Local isn't Broadcasting in HD

I like getting the locals OTA, that way when I get rain fade like today I can at least watch local channels.
 
Granny #1 has a new Hitachi 50 inch LCD HDTV and Granny #2 has a brand spankin' new Mitsubishi 52 inch DLP HDTV. It's not that we love Granny #1 any less, it was just a timing issue. We take very good care of our grannies and I'm sure most of you do too.

Anyway, my Gramma and Busha have nothing to do with this! :)
 
I would prefer OTA, one for rain fade, two so that Voom doesn't waste any bandwidth providing us with channels easily available over the air.
 
Just a quick comment, The heading on this thread is a little misleading. The law states that they are required to transmit digitally by 2006, but there is no requirement to broadcast in HD. Thats the state I am in, all my locals already transmit digitally (although I cannot recieve them because they intentionally block the signal from reaching my town) but they just piggyback thier analog signal onto the digital transmitter and have told me in e-mails that they have no intention to broadcast in HD....ever. and there is nothing that says they ever have to.
 
JaydeeD said:
...Thats the state I am in, all my locals already transmit digitally (although I cannot recieve them because they intentionally block the signal from reaching my town) but they just piggyback thier analog signal onto the digital transmitter and have told me in e-mails that they have no intention to broadcast in HD....ever. and there is nothing that says they ever have to.

That's kinda strange. The digital broadcasters in Atlanta are broadcasting either in both or in HD, not SD only. Where are you located? That's the experience I am going by.

I would also imagine that as the number of HD TV owners in your area increases and the lovers of shows like 24 or CSI start calling and wanting to know why they don't carry the HD feed, that they might someday succumb to the pressure for their viewers or perhaps even the network.
 
DarrellP said:
How about a quick recap so we don't have to read that link?

Actually the article below talks about DVT, not HDTV, but at least here in Atlanta, broadcasters are transmiting either both SD and HD DTV or just HD over their digital equipment.



Digital Deadline Gets Squishy


By Michael Grebb |

02:00 AM Jul. 22, 2004 PT

WASHINGTON -- Lawmakers debated Wednesday whether the government should dole out billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded subsidies to speed up the transition from analog to digital television.

At a hearing of the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, several witnesses said Congress should set a hard deadline after which TV stations would stop transmitting analog over-the-air television signals.

But they admitted that turning off analog TV signals all at once would create massive disruptions for television viewers across the country: Millions of homes without cable or satellite services would be forced to get special converters to receive the new digital signals.

"I would not underestimate the problem," said James Snider, a senior research fellow at the New America Foundation. "If there's any granny in the U.S. who is going to lose her TV, that's a problem."

Snider supports an approach used by Berlin, which in August 2003 became the first major city in the world to completely switch from analog to digital TV signals.

But German officials heavily subsidized the transition by giving out free converters to low-income TV viewers. German cable operators also "down converted" digital signals back to analog to minimize the disruption to viewers.

As was evident during the hearing, lawmakers are growing increasingly impatient with the pace of the digital TV transition in the United States.

"I sense growing concern that, without a hard date, we may never see the timely end to the DTV transition in the United States," said subcommittee chairman Rep. Fred Upton (R-Michigan). "With public safety, not to mention commercial wireless carriers, in need of spectrum currently encumbered by broadcasters, time is of the essence."

Government agencies want to use portions of the spectrum for public-safety uses such as police and fire department communications.

Upton, who advocates a program to subsidize boxes for low-income consumers, went on to suggest "some fairly aggressive regulatory and/or congressional intervention," but admitted that opinions vary on how to get there.

According to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, U.S. broadcasters technically already operate under a hard deadline to relinquish their analog spectrum by Dec. 31, 2006.

But TV stations can get extensions if fewer than 85 percent of viewers in any market don't have digital TV sets or converters to receive the new digital signals.

Most experts agree that few, if any, U.S. television markets will be ready to go all digital by the 2006 deadline, which is why lawmakers are examining whether the Berlin model might speed the transition.

Several panelists were skeptical that limited subsidies that didn't affect all TV viewers -- rich and poor alike -- would garner much public support.

"That's a cost you imposed on them," said Mark Cooper, director of research at the Consumer Federation of America. "I suspect that person will suggest that you fork over that 50 bucks."

Of course, subsidizing all the boxes could cost taxpayers billions of dollars.

Based on recent auctions of wireless spectrum, the federal government might only raise about $4 billion from selling off licenses to former analog TV spectrum, said Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Virginia).

He said about 45 million TV sets in the United States now receive only over-the-air broadcast signals. Assuming the high-end cost of $100 per converter, the federal government could spend as much as $4.5 billion to outfit those sets with digital converter boxes -- more than it might take in from auctions.

"I think we need to have a realistic view of what those costs are going to be," Boucher said.

But Snider said studies suggest that high-volume production could eventually push converter costs down to as little as $10 per box, enabling the government to subsidize converters and still come out ahead in the auctions.

Upton also said he hopes a combination of a hard deadline and low-income subsidies would spur mass production of boxes and lower prices quickly.

"This would be a very good development for all consumers," he said.
 
JaydeeD said:
Just a quick comment, The heading on this thread is a little misleading. The law states that they are required to transmit digitally by 2006, but there is no requirement to broadcast in HD. Thats the state I am in, all my locals already transmit digitally (although I cannot recieve them because they intentionally block the signal from reaching my town) but they just piggyback thier analog signal onto the digital transmitter and have told me in e-mails that they have no intention to broadcast in HD....ever. and there is nothing that says they ever have to.


I have the same problem as Jaydee,

I live in Northeast Pennsylvania and all 4 of my major networks and PBS have digital towers in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area. Currently only ABC and PBS transmit HD during Prime Time, they send upconverted SD (ED 4x3) the rest of the time. Our local Fox affiliate has commited to have HD by December.

But my local CBS and NBC affiliates currently only do upconverted SD (ED 4x3) and have no plans to do HD anytime in the next 5 years according to them. They state that the current laws only require them to broadcast digitall by Feb 2006, and upconverted SD to ED satifies the laws the way they are structured today. To make matters worse we have tried to get them to give us a waiver so we could get CBS HD via DTV or Dishnetwork and they laughed at us when we request waivers!!!
 
JaydeeD said:
Just a quick comment, The heading on this thread is a little misleading. The law states that they are required to transmit digitally by 2006, but there is no requirement to broadcast in HD. Thats the state I am in, all my locals already transmit digitally (although I cannot recieve them because they intentionally block the signal from reaching my town) but they just piggyback thier analog signal onto the digital transmitter and have told me in e-mails that they have no intention to broadcast in HD....ever. and there is nothing that says they ever have to.


I have the same problem as Jaydee,

I live in Northeast Pennsylvania and all 4 of my major networks and PBS have digital towers in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area. Currently only ABC and PBS transmit HD during Prime Time, they send upconverted SD (ED 4x3) the rest of the time. Our local Fox affiliate has commited to have HD by December.

But my local CBS and NBC affiliates currently only do upconverted SD (ED 4x3) and have no plans to do HD anytime in the next 5 years according to them. They state that the current laws only require them to broadcast digitall by Feb 2006, and upconverted SD to ED satifies the laws the way they are structured today. To make matters worse we have tried to get them to give us a waiver so we could get CBS HD via DTV or Dishnetwork and they laughed at us when we request waivers!!!
 
astrossuperfan said:
If you have to have the government GIVE you a $10 box, you need to get off the couch, pawn your TV, and go get a job.

It's easy to say that if you've never been in a situation where $10.00 can mean a weeks worth of meals to you. And it can be kind of hard to pawn a 13 inch tv with a tin foil and a coat hanger antenna.

Are you aware that there are many incredibly hard working people in this country that only make minimum wage? That means roughly $200.00/week before taxes. After taxes that's maybe 650/month. You try raise a family (or even survive as one person) on that. Sure some people are just lazy and just want to have things handed to them, but others do work very hard and are just in unfortunate circumstances.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we need to subsidize anything for them, but a statement like yours is way off base.
 
lostcause said:
It's easy to say that if you've never been in a situation where $10.00 can mean a weeks worth of meals to you. And it can be kind of hard to pawn a 13 inch tv with a tin foil and a coat hanger antenna.

Are you aware that there are many incredibly hard working people in this country that only make minimum wage? That means roughly $200.00/week before taxes. After taxes that's maybe 650/month. You try raise a family (or even survive as one person) on that. Sure some people are just lazy and just want to have things handed to them, but others do work very hard and are just in unfortunate circumstances.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we need to subsidize anything for them, but a statement like yours is way off base.

And how many homes where $10 is that important have a $149 xbox or playstation2?
 
Not many of the ones I'm thinking of. Some people think that just because someone doesn't have a spare $10.00 at any given moment, this means they are either lazy or unmotivated or irresponsible. Many of these people that make minimum wage have more than one job just to be able to eat.


Again, my point was not that the government needs to give them the ten bucks to buy a converter. TV is NOT a basic human right. I'm also not saying we need to feel sorry for anyone. My point is simply that it's a very bad generalization to say that if someone doesn't have a spare 10 bucks then they need to get off their ass and get a job.
 
astrossuperfan said:
If you have to have the government GIVE you a $10 box, you need to get off the couch, pawn your TV, and go get a job.

I like this guy.
 
Edited for content:

lostcause said:
Many of these people that make minimum wage have more than one job just to be able to eat. TV is NOT a basic human right.

My point exactly. We're not talking about the man giving someone money for food or hospital visits. We're talking about a TV converter box.

And by the way, if you are that bad off, WHY HAVEN'T YOU SOLD YOUR TV YET?? If $10 means a week's worth of meals, I'm pretty sure a TV takes care of a month at least. And if you have more than one minimum wage job just to be able to eat, why are you watching TV? Take a GED, take a college course, do whatever you can to get a better life. Don't sit and watch TV while my taxes pay for your converter box.

BTW: When can I expect my free box? :D
 
I have already said our taxes do not need to buy anyone a converter box. I'm certainly not a charity. I work hard for my stuff and I'm not in the business of giving it away. I'm not going to say someone else is lazy though just because they don't have a few extra $$$ to spend on tv if I don't know their circumstances. I'm not gonna cry for them either though.

All I'm saying is it's too easy to criticize someone for not having a spare $10.00 at any given moment meanwhile we sit at home watching our 60" HD sets with 2 or 3 satellite services. As for selling their tv, like I said before, how much are you gonna get for a 15 year old 13" tv with a tin foil antenna?? Realize, not all of us can change our circumstances at the drop of a hat. If we could, we would all be Donald Trump or Bill Gates.

Anyways, enough of my soapbox for the day...and where do I sign up for my free box too??? :D
 
Its not just DTV that is going to make people go out and buy a digital receiver. Clear Channel just announced it is going to convert 95% of it radio stations to digital within 3 years. A digital radio receiver starts at around $300. The good news is that AM will sound like FM and FM will have CD quality, but geez, $300 to listen to tunes in the car?
 
Well if that's the case just listen to a radio station that isn't owned by Clear Channel.

Oh wait, nevermind.

monopoly3a.jpg
 
***

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)