Comments on: Digital TV delay cost some TV channels $40,000/month

By: Duane

Duane — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 10:32:46 +0000

I seriously don’t understand how we are all going to get digital TV without buying into some service. Right now we get it (plus telephone service) with our cable service. I am, admittedly, somewhat “tech disabled” and I don’t know how this can work without a monthly charge. Can someone explain, in layman terms, how digital works as opposed to the old, analog broadcast way.? .. And, please tell us why this is better for everyone. Also, will everyone be paying a monthly charge for this mandatory digital service, the same way we pay our cable company? Who is the company supplying digital to everyone? Sorry if I sound stupid. I’m an artist, not a scientist…right brained, not left. I must have a mental block or something, but I just don’t get it. Thanks for your patience!
(Yeah. I’m a girl not a guy… with a guy’s name. Maybe that’s the problem.)

By: jim

jim — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 20:40:37 +0000

I have some friends with rural locations in the Midwest that simply do not get digital equivalent reception anymore and probably won’t. There are still a lot of people who won’t get any over the air reception that will have to have get satellite (can’t feed the kids, like they will get a dish).

I don’t think that the true cost of orphaning that part of the viewing public will be known till the cutover is finished and done with and you really can count them all.

I don’t know that it is disenfranchisement to have no TV reception, since there are plenty of other sources of information to have an informed decision on political issues, but it is sad that there was no alternative proposed to cover this when the decision was made to go with the digital channels.

keeping a few maybe at either the old 2-6 range, or a couple on the air in the 7-13 range, or even 1 or two in the 800mhz range would allow rural areas to be covered. And the best would probably be to keep say 11-13 alive and drop all other analog bands. Those stations would send all their power into rural locations, and away from populated centers, and their frequencies would still not interfere with most of the new gizmos that will use the vacated bandwidth.

By: T.O. Jason

T.O. Jason — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 01:50:12 +0000

Just saw this: http://gadgetress.freedomblogging.com/dtv2009/ which covers the antenna issue somewhat.

By: T.O. Jason

T.O. Jason — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 01:18:05 +0000

This posting is next to ridiculous.

1. There are no stations that I know of that are volunteering to take the money they are “saving” to buy converter boxes or antennae for anyone. Yes, they theoretically “could” do so, but they aren’t. So, it’s pointless to mention it at all.

2. Stations will have the *option* of continuing their analog broadcasts during the extended transition period. They don’t have to, so this optional delay will not cost them anything if they don’t want it to. If they aren’t concerned with peoples’ screens going black because they aren’t ready, then they can switch to all digital as originally planned.

What’s not mentioned here is that many people with indoor antennae will not be able to receive the digital broadcasts even if they are currently receiving analog channels with no problems. All of the advertising, PSAs, etc. have made it sound as though all current antennae will continue to be fine.

By: To all who enter, welcome

To all who enter, welcome — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 19:03:59 +0000

Seriously….. Paying for the digital box and antenna are cheaper compared to paying for cable. The problem is, Time Warner and all the cable companies would lose profit, big $$.
Since the economy is getting worse day-by-day cable company profits are going to come to a close. Food, shelter, clothing and gas are more important than watching television.

By: John S.

John S. — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 17:48:36 +0000

Bureaucrats make these laws without regards to the consequences. I work for a manufacturer of industrial control equipment. When DST was changed they acted like: “What’s the big deal you just wind your clock back earlier” They did not realize the impact on scheduling etc. software that had to be changed and tested. Everyone knew Feb was the month for turning off analog for a year and the prudent ones prepared for it . To wait until the last minute upsets everyone’s plans. Like the other posters, I agree anyone who didn’t buy a converter by now should be stuck. Maybe I will stock up on them and when there is a shortage I can resell for double and no coupon.

By: martince

martince — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 15:30:27 +0000

Let’s get the dtv transition over with. This is not just TBN (we watch 2 of their 5 channels at times); it is also Daystar, and a lot a independents along with the major network stations. This is not the time to increase costs on broadcasters in the middle of an advertising downturn.

By: syscom3

syscom3 — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 19:50:44 +0000

The country has a certain segment of stupid people, who get what they deserve. Pull the plug on analog as planned and get done with it. That will motivate them to get off their butts and buy the converter box.

By: Ed Dart

Ed Dart — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 00:59:40 +0000

The fact is some people won’t get ready until they are forced to get ready. If one night they can’t see their TV shows. The next day they will go and get the box. If they can’t afford the box now, what makes you think they will be able to afford it in June?