Going to all-digital. Questions.

Understanding "what is going on" does not change the outcome one iota. I think you need to read the results of the Wilmington tests. And irrespective of what kind of antenna they are using, they were not told "you will be OK if you get a converter box, EXCEPT IF..." They were told, "you will be OK if you get a converter box."

My point is exactly correct--people were NOT fully informed-- and I don't understand why you insist on diminishing it. Are you part of the industry and have a personal interest in a perception of smooth sailing? Wilmington did not "sail smooth" and that is a fact. Maybe those people did have "HD antennas" (I don't know that to be true). That wasn't a sin until this change came, and they were told (again I say) you will be OK with a converter box.

Oh for God sakes, what should they do then? Call the whole thing off? Coming from the computer world and upgrading users both residential and business, I see snags on a daily basis. Going from Win XP to Vista. Going from Windows Server 2000/2003 to Server 2008. You name it, any move forward in technology is going to have hiccups. Sometimes you just need to move forward and then sort it out.

What, do you think they should be giving antenna vouchers too? Enough is enough. So a few people that use OTA have their converter box but don't have the right antenna. Maybe they will get outside and get a little fresh air on their way to Radio Shack to get a new antenna.

You are so worried about EVERYBODY having smooth sailing. When is life smooth sailing? I'd like to see you go a year with no car troubles, no home repairs, no pets or kids or self getting sick. Sh*t happens! We need to move forward. I just don't understand where you are coming from. Should we put this transition off even longer until we can make sure every last OTA viewer has the right antenna?

No offense, (we have had our ups and downs on these boards and I like discussing with you so please don't get mad), but I feel like your attitude about all this is the attitude that will stifle progress.

We need to move forward with this. I mean seriously, when was the original transition date? 2004? 2005? I forget which but they have bumped it up way too many times. Let's get there and then look back and see what we need to do.
 
I agree that we can discuss this and not be mad at one another..I'm certainly not and don't think you are either. I do think you are not focusing on the specific point of my inputs. You still very much miss the point.

At no time whatsoever did I indicate the transition should be called off, did I? And yes, technology changes generate problems. Nowhere did I indicate otherwise.

My point (again) has simply been the lack of making affected people aware of the whole story. Not that transition shouldn't be done. Simply that people should not have been led to believe that the converter box would be all that was required. Then they are hit with the pocketbook surprise that such was not the case. Simple truth up front (full disclosure from the outset) would have avoided the whole issue--and this discussion. And I emphasize in the strongest terms that it is this disclosure failure I am talking about--nothing beyond that.

You have rebutted all my comments with comebacks that do not address my point at all, but rather address technical aspects, etc. Not the point at all. The point is failure to get complete information to the affected people. Not the technology. Not that 'problems always happen.' Not any of that.

Do you assert that people were informed that replacement antennas might be required, or not? Were they led to believe the converter solved everything, or not. That was my issue--my only issue--and not what the replies addressed. Either they were adequately informed, or they were not. Which is it? No technology discussion. Which is it?

I recognize the answer is an opinion, not a fact. But I have explained why I think there was insufficient information. If you have a different opinion (that they did get the whole story), please explain what makes you think so.
 
I agree that we can discuss this and not be mad at one another..I'm certainly not and don't think you are either. I do think you are not focusing on the specific point of my inputs. You still very much miss the point.

At no time whatsoever did I indicate the transition should be called off, did I? And yes, technology changes generate problems. Nowhere did I indicate otherwise.

My point (again) has simply been the lack of making affected people aware of the whole story. Not that transition shouldn't be done. Simply that people should not have been led to believe that the converter box would be all that was required. Then they are hit with the pocketbook surprise that such was not the case. Simple truth up front (full disclosure from the outset) would have avoided the whole issue--and this discussion. And I emphasize in the strongest terms that it is this disclosure failure I am talking about--nothing beyond that.

You have rebutted all my comments with comebacks that do not address my point at all, but rather address technical aspects, etc. Not the point at all. The point is failure to get complete information to the affected people. Not the technology. Not that 'problems always happen.' Not any of that.

Do you assert that people were informed that replacement antennas might be required, or not? Were they led to believe the converter solved everything, or not. That was my issue--my only issue--and not what the replies addressed. Either they were adequately informed, or they were not. Which is it? No technology discussion. Which is it?

I recognize the answer is an opinion, not a fact. But I have explained why I think there was insufficient information. If you have a different opinion (that they did get the whole story), please explain what makes you think so.

The short answer to the question of whether or not the Government did or is doing enough to prepare people for the transition is 'probably not'

The longer answer is that I believe it is the responsibility of the general public to ask questions and actually go out and find the answer for themselves. Relying on the Government to prepare you for this transition is not the right thing to do, it is, in my opinion, the lazy thing to do. Much of the general public acts like characters in the game "The Sims." They sit around waiting to be told what to do next, almost acting like puppets with reliance on Washington to operate their strings. If I was relying on an OTA antenna and had a sh*tbox 1980's Zenith television set (assuming I know nothing about what is going on with this transition and not tech savvy), I would go beyond getting my voucher and getting my free converter box. I would go into Radioshack and ask one of those in your face as soon as you walk through the door clerks whether or not I have what I need. I am sure they would be happy to sell me on a new antenna. I wouldn't just sit back and wait for the Government to tell me how to respond.

In my post I brought up other aspects of this matter because I see you complain about the Government not doing enough to ready people but don't see you offer any solutions as to what they should have done. If they didn't do enough, what more should they have done? I feel that they went too far in offering the vouchers, at the taxpayer's expense. However, somebody said that they were funding those vouchers with the auctioning off of part of the spectrum. That makes me feel better about the matter. Let's say Google buys a good chunk of that spectrum nationally for $50 billion, and the voucher program costs $75 million. I am OK with the vouchers since they are being covered by the auctioning off of the spectrum. This has yet to be verified but if that is in fact true, that is cool. But if it is just another budget item coming out of our already growing national debt, than yeah, I have a problem with it. I just want to know how far you think they should take this thing. I was questioning what you propose they do, not that you ever said they should cancel the transition. I also question whether you think a voucher for a new antenna should be offered up.

I am of the opinion that the Government has gone too far. If you stop and think about it, we are not entitled to television. Television only exists because a group of corporations are making money off of it. If your local ABC affiliate, for example, is so worried they are going to lose you as a viewer, which earns them money from advertisers, they have every right to say "Warning, if you are still using an analog TV set come Feb, you are going to need a converter box and a new antenna to view our station. As a courtesy, we are offering one converter box and one antenna per household." They could then offer to allow the people to come down to the station with a valid ID, utility bill, or something to prove they live in the local TV market, and pick up their antenna and converter. The lay out of less than $100 per household would be made back fairly quickly by means of selling advertising time as they always do. They could get a tax write off for the cost of the giveaways. They could also join together with the local affiliates of all the networks, and offer a central pickup, or split the cost of the equipment they gave away. If they griped about the cost enough, the Government could simply waive a certain amount of the TV station's required "public service announcement" advertisements, of which they make nothing off of. It would all balance out for the station and they would save OTA viewers.

This would make a lot more sense than the vouchers.

We as a nation need to get away from this idea that the Government will take care of everything for us. It is getting horrible. Nobody wants to do anything for themselves these days.
 
I completely agree about 'government doing everything for everybody' is the wrong approach absolutely. (Leads to a slave state, but that's another discussion.) But this is a case of them doing something TO everybody by mandating a change that affects them. Therefore, in my opinion, the onus is on them at least to provide full information about the impacts, which they did not do.

And I almost agree from a philosophical standpoint about them funding the converter offset...but OTOH, in this case, THEY caused the need. That is different from cases where they bail out people or companies who made bad decisions or intentionally taken risk bites them, but govt didn't cause the outcome (e.g., people who live in flood plain and don't have flood insurance). But in this case, THEY created the need for an adapter, so I accept some responsibility on their part to 'help' mitigate the effect of what they caused. Of course, 'they' aren't paying the money, we are.

I actually think we are close to common ground here!
 
Understanding "what is going on" does not change the outcome one iota.
I'm rebutting your position because it is largely wrong. Rather than counting on repeated passionate restatements of my point to get it across, I rely on presentation of facts that call into question the very basis of your claim of wrongdoing and malfeasance.

The press is out to find news.

For the bulk of the population that had a working system before, it will work just fine with a converter. Wilmington had both UHF and VHF stations before and they have a mixture after. If a few examples that the press managed to unearth didn't have full coverage before, that's not anyone else's fault but theirs. Most of the "wronged" viewers couldn't see all the channels before the transition and they shouldn't expect the transition to make the problem go away.
 
OK, I'm wrong. The Wilmington people had been told about the coming antenna problems. Sorry to have misunderstood.
 
Are you just saying this or do you know this to be FACT?

I have been pissed off since hearing about the converter box vouchers because I consider it Government waste. If they are covered by the money making auctioning off of that spectrum, I feel better about the vouchers. Please cite your source. I have seen so many debates about those coupons and have never heard anything about them being covered by the auctioning off of channels 52-69.

Thanks for the info if that is true.

Verizon, AT&T Big Winners in Spectrum Auction

The auction raised nearly $19.6 billion, some of which will pay for DTV transition costs such as the $1.5 billion program for coupons for over-the-air DTV converter boxes for consumers.
 
***

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

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)