Digital TV transition chief resigns

The government shouldn't spend a dime on education. I guarantee you the networks will be running ads and making this a huge news story around the time of the transition. It's in their self interest. Logically, it's incredibly stupid for the government to buy infomercials when the networks will do this work themselves.

And if I'm wrong, who cares? I have zero sympathy for people who can't watch TV for a few days until they figure out what's going on.

Kneuer probably finally realized that the whole point of the NTIA is to have an agency established to direct any and all blame for the transition. He has smartly quit the ultimate no-win job.

For those of you who ever watched The West Wing, this brings to mind the episode "Take out the Trash Day."

"And if I'm wrong, who cares? I have zero sympathy for people who can't watch TV for a few days until they figure out what's going on."

What about the old folks and the handicapped, who live in assisted-living centers, or the people who live in large apartments and condos that might need to wait months for someone to re-build their antenna systems, because no one in their management was forewarned about all this? Do you want granny hanging out the window, trying to tape a pair of rabbit ears to the rain gutter?

I feel sorry for people too... but every example you just gave is of someone who lives in a home with electricity and is eating on a regular basis, owns a tv, etc...

I personally have a problem with our government spending tax dollars on optional TV equipment when we have lots of homeless and hungry people in this country. Those folks don't have TVs or a house or electricity and they most certainly will not be helped by the transition initiative or coupons for HD receivers.

Unless and until we have resolved the homeless and hungry problem, I have a hard time feeling that anyone is "owed" or "deserves" assistance in being able to watch TV from the government.

Surely wasn't the requirement for broadcasters to educate enshrined in the legislation that allowed for digital broadcasting, and granted broadcasters two frequencies (one analogue, one digital) in the run-up to analogue switch-off, and continued to gift them valuable public airwaves?

I think the way the UK system works - the body responsible for digital transition produces the "Digital TV is coming" advert spots, but broadcasters are required to broadcast them (at no cost to the government and thus the tax-payer?) We have had these adverts running on the main networks in prime time for many months, as well as separate broadcasts by individual broadcasters promoting the new services on digital TV (extra channels, interactive TV, digital radio etc.)

They are deemed similar to "Public Information Films" - which are short films aired by both commercial and ad-free networks (things warning you of the importance of home security, smoke detectors etc.)- which we've always aired on terrestrial networks.

That would make a great transition commercial.

- Tom

Nor should they spend a dime on TV. WHat they should have done was to outlaw the manufacture of any more anaolg sets about 3 years ago.

That wouldn't do the trick. People are used to using television sets for decades, not just three years. Something positive is needed to draw a line in the sand and say, "No more analog broadcasts after such-and-such date." And since the vast majority of folks aren't as video-sophisticated as we are, there will need to be some specific actions taken to smooth that transition for that majority, or there will be severe ramifications for the people who authorized the transition.

How many people here will volunteer to man the telephones at TV stations all across America, starting at 12:01 AM on Wednesday, February 18, 2009?

The money that is being used for the "Subsidized Converters" and the Educational Campaign are NOT tax dollars. They are taken from the money that the Government is getting from selling off the spetrum resources that we all own(ed). It's sort of like paying someone for their home and property, just before bulldozing it all to make room for a new shopping mall or freeway. The Government pays them for what they take away, using some of the money they expect to make back in sales taxes.

It's not like we're buying Granny and Freddy-the-FreeLoader new Hummers .

Out of interest - do US stations pay the government for access to the airwaves? Is there a licensing fee or a spectrum tax? Surely this could be justifiably used to ensure people are aware of the changes? Or do US broadcasters pay a tax on advertising revenue that is returned to the state?

Over here one carrot used to "incentivise" (is there such a word?!) broadcasters to get viewers to move to digital was that UK commercial broadcasters paid tax on analogue viewers but not digital viewers when it came to commercial revenues - so the more digital viewers they have and the fewer analogue viewers they have the better, in tax terms.

I hope the subsidy is means-tested. anybody who can afford a $1000 plasma or :LCD can buy their own damn converter.

Those with plasmas or LCDs don't need them (or would want the HD version, not eligible for coupon).

So if we take your house for a building a freeway, we should "means test" whether we should pay you, or just take it?

The government is taking tv spectrum back. It compensated broadcasters by given them a digital frequency, but what about viewers? It is similar to an eminent domain issue. (And what they get for reselling the spectrum would pay for the coupons MANY times over. Mostly, they'll just pocket the money and waste it on some other government program)

Oh please. Money is fungible. Any money congress spends comes from people.

Watching TV is right, not a requirement. There is no place for the gov't in advertising the change over to digital. If TV stations can't unite to produce ads for their channels explaining the conversion then too bad. Don't worry about those not in the know. When they can't receive the channel they will call the station.

As far as I'm concerned, government shouldn't be mandating the way people watch TV........PERIOD! If individuals still want to watch analog broadcasts on old, outdated TV sets they should be allowed to for as long as they want. There are a lot bigger problems facing this country than whether everyone is converting over to digital broadcasts in Feb. 2009 and the fact that the government is even involved with this just means it's going to end up being one giant clusterf**k.

The whole NTIA effort is a scheme to say "We told you so!" so the Gov't will have an "out" when the nusiance lawsuits come in. The NTIA could care less about the OTA transition, and I'll bet even the head of the group needed to have it explained to him.

When it comes to the Gov't informing the citizenry, some of it is absurd. But I'm sure glad that I get informed on how to operate my seatbelt when I get on an airplane. Is there anyone flying who hasn't ridden in a car in the last 40 years?

Which cost us a fortune having to build and operate TWO transmitters, rebuild the plant for HD, and all for NO additional revenue. Here, my 3 tube digital transmitter costs as much to operate as the 2 tube analog and generates ZERO additional revenue, at least thus far.

I'm not a "Nielson family" so who knows if I am measured correctly. However, I watch tv more because it is HD; that is, I watch things I otherwise wouldn't have watched. If that is common and measured correctly, there should be more advertising revenue.

Don't worry -- you'll get to turn off the analog transmitter soon enough.

You understand the whole driving force is to take away channels 52-69 and resell the spectrum (to a service other than broadcast tv)? Digital transmission lets towers on the same frequency be closer together, so the remaining channels will suffice once they get everybody off analog. It is not about "better tv."

Since the government owns the airwaves and profits from re-auctioning them, the government thinks it SHOULD be telling everyone how to broadcast and receive tv, and for the broadcasters on what channel, frequency, modulation, and power, so the "leftover" tv channels represent an "orderly" market.

I hate those recorded messages you get when you call a business, but for mass questions like this, use 'em! Press 1 if you haven't figured out your TV is now a pile of rubbish.

Top 10 Questions that Morning: (In no particular order;feel free to edit/add..)

1) Will Jerry Springer still be on?
2) Will my soap operas still be on?
3) Now how will I know who was the baby's daddy on Maury Povich?
4) Why did you all close down?
5) So that Jericho show was real after all?
6) But why does my radio still work?
7) Why does my neighbor's TV still work?
8) Why does my VCR still work?
9) Is your TV station broken?
10) When will your transmitter be fixed?

I honestly don't know how anyone has ever received analog with an antenna. Right now, I'm watching football OTA and I'm getting most of the HD channels with my simple antenna. If I try to tune in to their analog counterparts, I get absolutely no reception... complete snow.

They used REAL antennas.. big and ugly on the roof usually with a rotor. There are basically two types of tv viewers:

1) those of us old enough to have used antennas before cable and satellite.
2) those who think the only way to get TV is by cable or satellite.

I used to watch OTA when I was younger, in the 80s (I was born in '83 for reference) and the quality had never been all that good to begin with. We didn't get cable until 1996, but I lived in Houston at the time so there were plenty of options OTA. Ghosting, snow, sometimes you wouldn't even get the network... Cable was just simpler. Now with digital broadcast, as long as you can hang on by a thread, you're going to get the channel. I think that is the biggest piece of the puzzle that needs to be communicated to the viewing public.

Probably because of your age. When I was growing up, cable & DBS didn't exist; an antenna was the only option.

My dad put up a big VHF/UHF yagi w/rotor, and we got stations from both Detroit and Toledo without too many problems.

Sorry, Brent -- that ship sailed back in the late '20s.


... like gaining more spectrum for emergency communications, who will be getting some of the Channel 52-69 spectrum TV is vacating when the channels get repacked. (The rest of the vacated spectrum will be auctioned for other services.)

The folks who want to still want to watch on an old, outdated TV can still do so by attaching an OTA converter or a cable/sat subscription to that old, outdated TV.

And besides, this is an HD forum. You're probably not going to find a lot of folks here who want analog broadcasting to last much longer.

I have no need for analog either, but I also realize there are a lot of people who aren't A/V enthusiasts like us that just want to watch plain old TV. Mostly I feel sorry for the elderly people who will be in a complete panic when this transition takes place.