*NEWSFLASH* DTV change Extended to June 12.

Page 1 of 2  
The government passed the bill today to allow the DTV change to be extended to June 12, rather than Feb 17. This allows us almost 4 more months before " T H E E N D ".
Geeeezzzz, I might have to disconnect my DTV converter to enjoy the vintage analog pictures for a few more months.
Now they got to change all those tv commercials that keep telling us that on Feb 17, our screens will go blank, mini-skirts will be outlawed, and we will all be thrown back into the dark ages where we will all be forced to sit around an old Crosley or Atwater Kent radio to get our news, and we will all have to move into log cabins or caves, build outhouses, and trade in our cars for a horse and buggy.
Thank you God, and Thank you president Obama !!!!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@invalid.com wrote:

Yes. what an amazing individual. Now he can concentrate on finding some elitist democrats who are honest and aren't tax cheats to fill the remaining positions...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

no doubt the 3 million who are losing all TV permanetely because digital doesnt work from their locations will be pleased. numbers are from FCC themselves
plus the folks who ordered coupons that never arrived / program ran out of money.
and those whos coupons expired for whatever reason.
the low power stations who will remain analog will be happy too they may retain some viewers.
whats the rush? not like the bandwith is critical at this time to future anything
forget free wireless internet for everyone, forget essential services like police and fire.
the bandwith got bought for cell phone service...........
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The people who will "lose TV permanently" will do so only by their choice. They can go to satellite. Yep, might cost them a bit but...
The delay will also be an economic loss for those who bought the freed up space plus for the TV stations who will have to keep running free adds for people who are so stupid they haven't been able to understand a full year or more of explanations.
My local stations are going to change on the original date and I see reports of the same thing elsewhere.
Harry K
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/5/2009 7:34 AM Harry K spake thus:

You're totally missing the point. We're talking about *free* over-the-air TV, the type we've been accustomed to receiving for FREE lo these many decades. You don't just take something like that away and say "too bad, you can just pay for ________ if you want to watch TV".
--
Personally, I like Vista, but I probably won't use it. I like it
because it generates considerable business for me in consulting and
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

my point exactly plus some may be tree or other obstructions and unable to get satellite.
free for a lifetime and now 3 million are losing it
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
whats the rush? not like the bandwith is critical at this time to future anything
***************************************************************************
If they postpone it again and again for the next 10 years, some people will not be ready. Technology changes and at some point, you just have to make the jump. I doubt anyone reading the newsgroup is using a Commodore 64 or even an 8088 PC.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

except that the GOVERNMENT didn't pass any law killing your Commodore 64,8088 PC,or 8-track player.(and then fail to pay for that taking.) Those died a natural death.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Use that argument on those who bough BETA Max.
The government regulates the use of airwaves. You want to use the stuff, you pays. Nothign anywhere says you have to have a TV.
Harry K
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They're not taking away what you've got, just failing to provide MORE.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I do occasionally.
BTW, it lacks the self-clicking touchpad this laptop has.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Part of the rush factor is that the industry made plans for this date which was set long ago. I've read news stories with examples of companies that have contracts in place, with crews ready to start dismantling the analog transmitters the day after shutdown. And there are parties on the other end that are buying the transmitter and expected it to arive in Feb, not June. How about you had financing locked in to pay for the transmitter that you were supposed to receive in Feb and the financing committment expires? What happens if the whole deal to sell the transmitter falls through, what repercussions does it have for the party expecting the eqpt in Feb, etc. Also, the cost of running the analog transmitter can be $20K a month.
Not to say these are super critical, just that there are consequences whenever you start jerking this kind of date around.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Here's another unintended consequence... Apparently, the electronics manufacturers that were making the converter boxes had long since shut down production based on the February date and the assumption that everyone who wanted a box would have them by now, or could draw from retail stock.
So, even though Congress in its infinite wisdom decided to extend the deadline and create more coupons, there may not be much to spend them on.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Neville wrote:

I was in Wal-mart last week and they had plenty of the Magnevox converters on the shelves.
---MIKE---

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 12:00:27 -0800, David Nebenzahl
[snip]

There's always those who fail to realize that "ceasing to provide something" is very different from "taking something away".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gary H wrote:

Except for that nasty little detail about the airwaves being public property, with the broadcasters being licensed to use them for the public good.....
(I have always been of the opinion that satt and cable companies should NOT have to pay to rebroadcast OTA stations anywhere within the coverage map for that station, as filed with the FCC. The rebroadcasters are doing the OTA station a favor, and having to pay for the privilege.)
But no, lack of free converter boxes isn't really taking away Free TV. The TV wasn't free in the first place. The whole coupon program was pure pork. With a 2 year+ heads-up period, pretty much everyone can afford a 40-buck converter box, and that price point was established by the coupon program. After the cutover, and after the coupon program ends, they will go for the 20 bucks they should have cost in the first place. There just ain't that much hardware there, no more than a cheap 5" portable, which has been available for 20 bucks for years.
I'll leave for another rant the discussion about how the OTA broadcasters should have paid for the boxes, since without viewers, they can't sell ads.
aem sends...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Uh,Government ORDERED broadcasters to change their systems;not a choice broadcasters would have made on their own. So,gov't DID "take away" analog TV. If broadcasters -on their own- had decided to change over to DTV,then it would be a natural market decision,not gov't interference,and no compensation would be necessary.

I wholeheartedly agree! Cable companies expand the number of viewers and thus expand the fees that OTA stations charge for advertising.They make OTA stations MORE money.

When the gov't enacts a law that -effectively kills my analog TV- without a converterbox,it IS "taking Free TV away". Unless they compensate me for the loss of my present TV. The coupon provides a converter that RESTORES the usefulness of my TV,thus no loss,no "taking".

Sez who? you think elderly on fixed incomes can afford one more extra expense? Or unemployed folks?

No,it's because of the taking of our analog tv's,by rendering them useless by gov't fiat. Broadcasters should not have to pay for what gov't does.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I have been involved to a greater or lesser extent in Cable TV since an internship with the local government's CATV office in '73. I have rather vivid memories of the local stations going to the FCC and Congress for the "Must Carry" rules mandating that CATV systems include the locals and not cut them off from their markets. Roughly 30 years later, the locals go back to Congress demanding payments. Interesting way the world turns sometimes.

Interesting theory. I wonder if that would have constituted a taking under the constitution. Guess we'll never know for sure.

(marginally) less of a problem with this if they had means-tested it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No way in hell you'd get a ruling that ending analog TV is a taking that requires compensation. For all the whining about the cost of a converter, which is now free with a coupon, how about this scenario, which I've posed before. You bought a 20 acre farm 40 years ago. Under the zoning at the time, and the zoning until recently, you could have sub divided it and turned it into 10 lots on which homes could be built. Then, this year, the muncicipality changed the zoning so that you can no longer do that. Hence, then value just went from $2mil, to $500K. That or similar happens regularly with NO compensation at all, whether it's a widow, senior citizen or anybody else. That has been challenged in the courts under the "taking" theory and lost.
Or another example is a major highway goes through your neighborhood. If they take your property, you get compensated, though most times, it's less than fair. However, if your house is 3 houses down, but they don't take your property, the house which was on a quiet street, now sits next to a freeway. Guess what you get? Zippo Even though it's worth less than it used to be.
Now those are some situations to get pissed about.

And I would have had more of a problem with it. If they're going to give them away, then everyone should get one. No more means testing and turning it into another welfare program. Maybe we should make it so u get one if you have 3 kids, so that those with 2 kids will have more incentive to have another baby.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

IIRC,the "Must Carry" laws were about small broadcasters like religious stations that would get left off cable if they weren't made to carry them. Now it's been twisted.

Whether they say "turn them all in",make it illegal to use or own them,or just make them useless thru legislation,it's all the same thing; a "taking" by gov't.

and that one only appeared Dec 08.(after one of my coupons expired....) My Magnavox ended up costing me $13 after using a coupon.It would have been $53 without it,and some converters are even more expensive.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.