Congress Delays Digital TV Switch

1. 68

   Nickny79posted 15 years ago

   "WASHINGTON (Feb. 4) - Congress is giving consumers four more months to prepare for the upcoming transition from analog to digital television broadcasting.
   
   The House on Wednesday voted 264-158 to postpone the shutdown of analog TV signals to June 12, to address growing concerns that too many Americans won't be ready in time for the Feb. 17 deadline that Congress had set three years ago. The Senate passed the measure unanimously last week and the bill now heads to President Barack Obama for his signature.
   
   The change is being required because digital signals are more efficient than analog, and ending analog will free up valuable space in the nation's airwaves.
   
   The delay is a victory for the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress, who maintain that the previous administration mismanaged efforts to ensure that all consumers - particularly poor, rural and minority Americans - will be prepared for the switchover.
   
   The Nielsen Co. estimates that more than 6.5 million U.S. households that rely on analog TV sets to pick up over-the-air broadcast signals still are not ready. People who subscribe to cable or satellite TV or have a newer TV with a digital tuner will not be affected."
   
     Anyone care to speculate why the Democrats are SO eager to get everyone to switch from analog to digital.  The stated motive is to free up the airwaves and to ensure poor, rural and minority Americans make the switch...don't you think people can take care of this for themselves? An
   
   Any care to speculate as to the hidden motives underlying the Democrats enthusiam for the switchover from analog to digital?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Teresa McGurkposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      replyreport
2. 77

   Uninvited Writerposted 15 years ago

   This switch was coming no matter what government was going to be in control. They are doing it in Canada to.

   replyreport
3. 0

   Leta Sposted 15 years ago

   HOW stimulating, Nick!
   
   1.  Stupid (mostly) TV is the opiate of the 'hoi polloi.'  2. Advertising rules no matter what party is in power.
   
   Learn anything more enlightening in school today? 

   replyreport
   1. 68

      Nickny79posted 15 years agoin reply to this

      I would argue that the democratic political machine relies heavily on TV media for its propaganda and would happily take an additional six million voters by making a gift of a free digital converter.  The people don't rule in any democracy---the opinion makers do and that includes your advertisers and PR people.  And that's why Plato is right about democracy.

      replyreport
4. 70

   TheMoneyGuyposted 15 years ago

   I would really like to see these six million or so analog tv's.  I would find it very hard to believe that anyone has any left.  My mother in Rural as it gets Oklahoma bought one of those stupid converters for her tv, because she has rabbit ears.
   
   I said mom when did you buy that TV, she said about 8 years ago.  They stopped selling analog tv's over a decade ago.  So I told her she wasted her money she was actually converting her analog into a digital signal already.  So it was not necessary to undue it.
   
   So I did a little poking and the same old crowd got the gov to make the switch and throw out a bunch of hype on the TV.  OMG the switch is coming.  They sold an ass ton of those boxes, all subsidized by me and you to the tune of 40 bucks a household.
   
   I have seen ten of the boxes so far hooked up to TV's that were already digital.  Talk about a shake down.  I would much rather some poor asshole with a switchblade take 2 twenties from me in a mugging than, have my mother and many others like her sucked into this BS scam and then have to give two twenties over to the companies making the boxes via Uncle Sam.
   
   They real difference is I can pop a cap in a mugger’s ass, but have no control over how the crooks in DC spend my money.
   
   TMG

   replyreport
   1. 0

      pgrundyposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Um...we have three analog TVs. But we only watch one of them. If it were completely up to me, we'd have no TVs of any kind. I used to not have one, and it was very peaceful.
      
      Don't really care if they go digital now, next year, next century. It's all crap anyway.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Proud Momposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      I don't particularly like to debate politics, although I do hold very strong opinions, but I'm behind you TMG.  I've watched with much curiosity another form of what I suspect is capitalization on this subject.  Recycling companies are offering to pick up TVs anyone feels will not work after the transition, free of charge, to keep them from going into the landfill.  I highly suspect quite a few of these recycled TVs are perfectly compatible, and likely resold for profit for the recyclers.  Granted, a form of recycling, but a bit dishonest in my eyes.  Locally, I've seen these TVs on curbs with amazing frequency, being picked up and loaded into the same unmarked pickup truck.  I'm not a conspiricy theorist, but I smell something--and it ain't cookies!

      replyreport
5. 0

   Leta Sposted 15 years ago

   Why yes!  Although some of us would read Plato's words in a non-exploitive way towards other people and even the 'masses.' Others (not mentioning anyone particularly, ahem) have certain prurient agendas.
   
   Incidentally, this is all recognized by Chomsky in his take on our current 'democracy.'  That is how the term libertarian socialist actually makes sense.
   
   And you do seem to forget the highest percentage group of people who voted for Obama were the highest educated--those with graduate degrees.  The policy and opinion makers.

   replyreport
6. 0

   Leta Sposted 15 years ago

   Come to the 'dark' side, Nick--we have cookies, lol--and I know you want to. 

   replyreport
7. 77

   Uninvited Writerposted 15 years ago

   Yep...it's a worldwide conspiracy so that the US Democratic party can spread propaganda.
   
   They are doing it in the UK, they are doing it in Canada, they are probably doing it in Japan.

   replyreport
8. 60

   webjunkieposted 15 years ago

   The reason that many governments are implementing the change has nothing to do with politics. Digital transmissions are more effective in the use of the broadcast spectrum. There are only so many frequencies which can be used to transmit data, and with the worlds rapidly expanding use of electronic  devices something had to be done to make room for new technology. 
   
   One Issue in the us That I am a aware of is that communications systems for police and fire departments are crowding each other. This can create problems in times of emergency such has  they have to wait for the channel to be open to dispatch equipment or personnel to a problem location.
   
   When analog TV broadcasts  do end, those frequencies will be returned to the federal government. Some have been allocated to public-safety uses like  communications systems for police and fire departments. The rest I expect will be likely to auctioned off to companies and others for commercial uses.
   
   
   
   The legislation started in 1996 that has gotten us to this point, delaying it 90 seems a bit silly. But well that the nature of Government this countries government anyway.

   replyreport
   1. 68

      Nickny79posted 15 years agoin reply to this

      This is the most satisfactory explanation I have gotten on this so far; but SURELY, Congress (and certainly the Democrats) does not act so enthusiastically without SOME political motive.

      replyreport
9. 90

   gamergirlposted 15 years ago

   Trolling attempt number 3902 by NickNY, failed.
   
   

   replyreport
   1. 68

      Nickny79posted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Incorrect, it's attempt 441...and just for the record I don't need to troll on this forum as most of my traffic comes from my facebook, the web and stalker Lita Sorensen.  I'm pretty sure my forum activity reduces my hubpages traffic by some weird formula penalty; I certaily never saw any correlation between what I do here and how many hits I get....nevertheless that won't stop me from speaking the unpopular truth!  I don't modify my behavior by carrots and sticks.   

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Leta Sposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Yes, I'm very scary. No worries, you shall now be ignored!

         replyreport
10. 60

    webjunkieposted 15 years ago

    The big push in the USA came during the 911 terrorists attack when emergency channels where waiting 15-30 minutes or more to contact units. When some systems went down it vastly overwhelmed others. This plan should thin out the number of departments that have to share a frequency, and lord knows the government has enough departments.

    replyreport
    1. 68

       Nickny79posted 15 years agoin reply to this

       And so counselor, I gather then that you are unwilling to see any less than generous motives here.  You have given full faith and credit to our Congress.  Pure utility and altruism?

       replyreport
11. 60

    webjunkieposted 15 years ago

    as in all legislation lobbyist have pushed this through, but it most likely  was lobbyist for the cell phone industry I would have to guess as while not public announce some frequencies will be put up for auction. I really doubt wither the average politician really care you you have analog TV or digital just as long as you can see the  ads for re-election he or she is happy.

    replyreport
12. 68

    Nickny79posted 15 years ago

    I tend to read into this more.  As mentioned in several sources SIX MILLION individuals would supposedly be left without TV's--citing the poor and minority areas as the hardest hit.  These are constitutencies that Democrats typically like to try to appeal to.  You will also have to agree that most of the TV networks are palpably biases towarded a more liberal social agenda.  If these individuals are left without TV (and this is probably their exclusive source of news), not only does the Democrat machine lose a significant connection with 6 millions people, but such people would likely use analog radio as an alternative means to get their news...and what political perspective dominants the radio airwaves?  Conservative talk radio--an extraordinarily powerful opinion shaper.  It's so strong, in fact, that leading democrats what to silence this medium with the so-called "Fairness Doctrine."  Does any of this ring true to you? or do you think this is far-fetched?  Remember six million people is a LOT of votes.  Presidential elections are often won and lost by fewer votes.

    replyreport
13. 60

    webjunkieposted 15 years ago

    OKay Nickny79 if you want to make this political and it about as political as the disappearance of 8 tracks  the real reason we are converting to digital is President Obama thinks he so good looking (and maybe the ladies agree that he is) is he want everyone to see his image in a clear digital format.  There you have the secret agenda of the current president, even though this started in 1996 and been passed by both Democrats and Replication alike is was  President Obama that was behind  the plot the entire time. go write  a hub on the new secret agenda of current administration.

    replyreport
    1. 68

       Nickny79posted 15 years agoin reply to this

       The fact of the matter is the democrats NOW in 2009 are the most vociferous about extending the deadline and giving coupons to ensure people get the converter box. I'm not pinpointing Obama per se, but the increasingly Democrat Congress.  You are welcome to disagree, but I detect other motives than mere utility.

       replyreport
       1. 60

          Teresa McGurkposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          It is tempting to see motives where there are likely none, or misinterpreting motives that are stated, when faced with interpreting the actions of any group of people, not just politicians.  Several factors can contribute to this, but the most obvious and pernicious is simply a lack of all the information necessary to make an informed opinion.  Furthermore, were you to poll the Democratic congress on the topic, you would probably find a variety of motives for this seeming enthusiasm ranging from an honest concern to bandwagon bias.
          But surely you know all this.  You are intelligent and thoughtful.

          replyreport
14. 60

    webjunkieposted 15 years ago

    Nickny79 I has read this post and discoved what your problem, you listen to talk radio talk radio. Now that in itself is not a problem but you must remember that when you listen to talk radio their job is attract listeners and like the rest of us of some days they just don't have much to talk about that will rile up there faithful listeners. To keep them tuned in,  like any orator they invent something. Sometimes they have a a bit of a clue to what they speak other of sometimes they read a head line off CNN or the Times and wing it. Hey they get paid to fill the air waves for X number of hours with something, if they can hit topics that incite conversation  of one faction against the other its a jackpot. The listeners call in talk for them and they sit back drink a coffee and dream up the next topic that can tee off half the population. Yes I to listen to talk radio but I also understand that many of the topics should be considered humor or opinon not news.

    replyreport
    1. 68

       Nickny79posted 15 years agoin reply to this

       This is silly--I'm not sure what talk radio you listen to, but in NY talk radio often breaks news that either the CNN or the Times does not cover or (more often than not) is unwilling to cover.  Quite often it IS the news and frames the conversation in such a way that other media outlets follow.  The NY Times, incidentally, is mostly garbage unless it is reads simultaneously with the Wall Street Journal, and then only if one has time to kill.

       replyreport
15. 68

    Nickny79posted 15 years ago

    I'm just mystified that you are not willing to admit an underlying political motive--you are more willing to find a motive in talk radio, which does well and have no shortage of topics with or without analog TVs and the current controversy.  I understand your opinion and you have shed more light on this issue than anyone on this thread--I just don't agree fully agree with you with regard to motives.

    replyreport
16. 60

    killatiaposted 15 years ago

    You have bigger problems if you think there's some sort of conspiracy in delaying DTV conversion.

    replyreport
17. 70

    TheMoneyGuyposted 15 years ago

    I suppose all of you missed the part where the Government plans to auction off the freed up airspace. 
    
    This is just another eminent domain issue.  Where one industry or group of citizens.  Are told by the force of the US governments guns to vacate or else. 
    
    The amount of money the US expects to raise is in the billions.  And we the Taxpayers financed it.  You guys can keep reading the canned answers and pass them around.  But this is about taxpayers enriching the few.
    
    It is no conspiracy just the same old greed.
    
    TMG
    
    By the time of the 2009 switch, the government will have auctioned the remaining spectrum to companies interested in deploying wireless technologies. The proceeds are estimated at about $10 billion by the Congressional Budget Office. The auction is supposed to begin no later than Jan. 7, 2008.
    
    Everyone would be screaming if this was a public park, but your public airwaves no one cares about.

    replyreport
18. 70

    TheMoneyGuyposted 15 years ago

    Though most of the space is to be auctioned off to wireless service providers.  After, a few groups called them out on this, they added the emergency services spill.  Then tagged on the 9/11 connection to make everyone feel nice.
    
    TMG

    replyreport
19. 70

    TheMoneyGuyposted 15 years ago

    As for the delay again money.
    
    " We've got March Madness, we've got the NCAA tournament," says Chris Baker, General Manager of WVLT-TV/DT
    
    Simply put everyone in the tv business wanted to make sure they had maximum availability in order to quote advertising budgets.  Nothing makes congress move like money.  Or in this case stop moving.
    
    TMG

    replyreport
20. 0

    Leta Sposted 15 years ago

    Greed on all sides and everywhere at certain levels, TMG.   As you said once, and I also know, from what I've seen, big business interests and government interests are often in bed together. And yes, of course, it doesn't matter what party is in power at moment (though I think one party does have a better perspective than the other on most issues and that Obama has by far the best character of anyone I believe in my lifetime that we have elected to office).
    
    The weight of it all has got to be crushing:  “The exercise of power in any institutionalized form – whether economic, political, religious, or sexual – brutalizes both the wielder of power and the one over whom it is exercised.”

    replyreport
    1. 70

       TheMoneyGuyposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Someday we should have coffee.
       
       TMG

       replyreport