Talk:Coupon-eligible converter box/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

The real problem, faulty audio decode on at least 3 brands of units!

there are reports on the web about the artifact laden audio decoding of the Zenith, Insignia and dtx9900. there is an awful sibilance in the left channel at times that is unacceptable. this plus the fact that the coupons expire so quickly mean the consumer is left buying faulty products. there doesn't seem to be any word on recall, there doesn't seem to be any acknowledgment of a problem.

There are other severe problems, such as the inability to add channels without wiping out everything already stored, on many of these units (and not just on inexpensive coupon boxes!) See the comparison of CECB units and associated talk page for info. --72.140.46.227 (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It gets worse. Some of the DVD recorder boxes display digital signal-strength on-screen in such a way that, as soon as you turn the antenna the wrong way, the signal-strength meter is removed from the screen and replaced with "No signal. Press [OK]." These are coupon-ineligible converter boxes and by no means inexpensive, but this quickly gets annoying when using an antenna+rotor. Where I've been able to find a source confirming problems for eligible boxes, I've said so, but I'm not sure if "No signal. Press [OK]." is a Panasonic-specific quirk or something that affects CECB as well. The issue of coupons expiring without any option to renew (the clock starts ticking when they're mailed, not when they arrive) is easily sourced and I've added it to the "criticisms" listed. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

See #Problems we're not being told about.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Eligible Households

What constitutes an eligible household is in fact defined here: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/frnotices/2007/DTVFinalRule_2a.htm --97.114.21.39 (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No merger

A CECB is most certainly not the same thing as a "digital television adapter." 71.219.238.58 (talk) 05:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

List of CECB Devices with S-Video Output

I think that, if the list of devices belongs in the Comparison of CECB units, individual features (such as S-video or analogue passthrough) shouldn't be re-listed in this page. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 01:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Unbalanced

The "complaints" section describes only negative viewpoints against the CECB program and thus does not follow Wikipedia Neutrality guidelines. 76.224.69.113 (talk) 06:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

By definition, complaints are negative. However, it would be better if the section wasn't so long. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

History

The "history" section as currently written doesn't go back very far, at least not to cover the events before (and leading up to) the Digital Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005. The history of US DTV should more accurately go back to events in 1986 [1] when the National Association of Broadcasters first promoted HDTV as a way to avert a Federal Communications Commission attempt to revoke portions of broadcast TV's UHF spectrum allocation[2] in favour of land-mobile companies. From there, the development of ATSC digital television as a competitor to Japan's HDTV system led to deployments in the largest markets in 1998, with smaller cities mandated to follow with their own DTV deployments through 2002 or 2003. The original plan used legislation to mandate shutdown of analogue broadcasts in 2006 if 85% of over-the-air viewers had access to digital TV; it was presumed that by then digital TV's and converters would've dropped dramatically in price. That didn't happen as TV manufacturers were not required to include any digital tuners in TV sets, a problem which would remain until 2007 (or 2005-2006 for large-screen TV's). For the first several years of over-the-air DTV broadcasting, converters were more expensive than digital satellite television receivers and harder to find. Few were deployed, leaving TV stations little incentive to increase the power of their digital signals. Congress therefore was forced to legislate a new deadline, February 17, 2009, but this time with no provision for leaving analog signals in place even if large numbers of viewers remained unable to receive digital TV. Thus the need for the coupon-eligible converter box programme, to be funded from part of the proceeds of the spectrum auction, as a means of getting large quantities of inexpensive DTV to Americans in order to avoid (currently) seventy million TV's all going blank in one day.

Most of the details of whatever happened next are in the Digital Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005, Coupon-eligible converter box and other existing articles on DTV transition, but you are missing a rather key piece of history here. Without it, there is no explanation as to how the US got to the current situation for DTV deployment. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 01:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the history needs to go back as far as 1986, but I'm sure some of the other DTV articles do. I do agree this article hasn't gone back far enough. There is no content to speak of in the Digital television adapter article. It doesn't need to be merged if there is additional information, and that's the place for it. I'm way behind on Broadcasting & Cable, and people can follow my progress by looking at my user contributions that include putting information from the real magazine on Wikipedia. Actually, it's an online databse, but unlike the web site, I know for sure everything was in the real magazine from seeing it on PDF.
I have seen references to the converter box concept that date to 2006 in the magazine, so they'll be on here soon once I get to the library where I can spent all the time I want on that database.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Relevance of complaints section

This article is supposed to describe the Coupon-Eligible Converter Box program, yet much of the complaints section concerns the US DTV transition. Any criticism of the transition should be moved to a more appropriate article. 76.224.69.113 (talk) 06:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree - I'll work on trimming the complaints section. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, much of what you've removed is very relevant to the boxes and/or the coupon program. You may want to rethink this a wee bit; deleting more than half the article is a bit excessive. If none of these boxes are capable of picking up much of anything (beyond 10-25 miles) without a powerful outdoor antenna, that's something of which viewers should be being made aware. Inability to add channels without wiping everything, lack of analog passthrough (needed for LPTV and foreign signals, to remain analog for now) and similar issues with the boxes do need to be addressed. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 01:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I've annotated the sections I removed. The fact that analog passthrough is not mandated is a good thing to restore in the article. The ability to not add channels is an issue with individual boxes but also possibly a problem with the government specification itself. As of this writing, this inability is mentioned in the article as the limitations section. Signal weakness is an issue with the DTV transition as a whole - not these converter boxes.
You mention that the complaints section was about half the article - which is true. As it was, it was way too long. This should be an article about the boxes in general, not an extensive POV list of complaints. These can be found elsewhere - namely on blogs and web forums. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Blogs and web forums? These are sourced by mainstream broadcasters and news media, publications such as Consumer Reports and in some cases public statements by government officials and public records. This is real, not just a statement of opinion from some obscure blog somewhere; there's a reason why other countries such as the United Kingdom are phasing-in the conversion one city at a time instead of just shutting everything off at once and waiting to see who loses their TV. The converter boxes are just one piece of a larger puzzle, but issues such as 1.8 million being left with no over-the-air TV in remote or rural regions, the cost to consumers and broadcasters of transition, and the various political and economic motives at stake do need to be addressed - perhaps in an article on the US DTV transition as a whole. There's plenty that isn't being explained by the 15-second government-mandated PSA's, most of which originated from NAB or CEA sources and endlessly repeat the same incomplete and largely-confusing message. Enough to fill a book? That had already been done, IIRC. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 23:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say the complaints were sourced by blogs and web forums. I said that Wikipedia articles aren't some dumping ground for every complaint people may have - such grievances would ideally be suited for web forums and blogs.
And yes, as you said this kind of criticism belongs, if anywhere in the article on the DTV transition as a whole. I would support properly sourced and well written material regarding this criticism being integrated into another article - just not this one. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Complaints section text

I took out the following passages that are complaints about the DTV transition in the United States. This article is about the boxes themselves, not the administration of the transition as a whole. Feel free to integrate this text into the appropriate article (although it needs some trimming). --Jtalledo (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I've annotated each passage with some rationale for excising each one from the article. My text is indented under each passage. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The lack of analog passthrough on many boxes may cause low-power, Class A, broadcast translator and foreign TV signals currently viewable in the US, none of which are required to be broadcast digitally in 2009,[1] to become unavailable to many viewers.[2] The Community Broadcasters Association has therefore attempted, so far unsuccessfully, to claim this limitation as a violation of the US All-Channel Receiver Act of 1961[3] while claiming that the public service announcements currently claiming that "all TV must be digital by law" in 2009 only serve to confuse and mislead LPTV viewers. Small-market broadcasters relying on rimshot coverage into larger markets[4] or covering vast rural areas on low-VHF channels stand to lose viewers if weak analog reception becomes no digital reception, while US stations broadcasting into Canadian or Mexican markets are left in the position of advising their viewers to search for hard-to-find analog passthrough DTV converters[5] in communities where there are no coupon programs and often no converter boxes.[6] While many viewers will gain new channels, the number of Americans who cannot receive any TV over-the-air due to being in remote and rural locations stands to increase from 2.7 million in 2008 to 4.5 million once digital conversion is complete.[7]

The lack of analog passthrough is a good point relating to the boxes, but the rest of this paragraph is essentially a POV rant about how the transition is being handled.

Even in major US centers, many consumers will need costly new antennas,[8] not covered by the coupon program,[9] and many who do obtain coupons will find their choice of converters limited by the need to use the nonrenewable coupons before their 90-day expiry[10]. Many retailers are sold-out or have a narrowly limited selection of models.[11] The coupons are also unavailable to residents of institutions such as nursing homes.

The antenna bit relates to the digital transition as a whole, since it relates to reception of digital signals. The 90-day expiration bit can be included in the history section. The "sold out" claim needs a more reliable source.

While the Consumer Electronics Association estimates that, as of 2008, 50% of US homes have at least one digital TV[12], the number of available coupons remains insufficient with funding for 33.5 million coupons while approximately 70 million televisions need an upgrade.[13] With over eight million coupon requests for sixteen million coupons already received, there are also concerns that the program is prone to waste, fraud and abuse.[14] Any US household may obtain two coupons per mailing address, regardless of income or actual need for the boxes, and just 42 percent of the coupons initially sent to consumers in February 2008 were successfully redeemed before they expired.[15] While on-line auction site eBay has been removing listings unlawfully reselling the coupons, there is no means to prevent use of the US subsidy to buy converter boxes for resale, auction or export.

The claim that the number of coupons is insufficient also needs a reliable source. The redemption bit can be included in the history section.

Many digital signals are also prone to windowboxing, a form of multiple letterboxing in which standard 4:3 aspect ratio TV images are padded with grey or black bars on both sides to fit digital 16:9 widescreen formats by DTV broadcasters, then padded again by black bars on the top and bottom of the image when the DTV converter places the image back onto a standard (non-widescreen) 4:3 TV.[16] On most converters, this must be overridden manually to "zoom" the picture to its proper size.

This is an issue with how television is being broadcast, not the converter boxes.
How so? There is a standard for an Active Format Description but only a couple of CECB's handle the additional image-format information at all despite reasonably-strong support for the standard from CATV equipment makers and some of the networks, including Fox and NBC. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 12:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

While broadcasters are required to run public-service announcements multiple times daily, informing consumers of the converter program, the converter box is only as good as the antenna to which it connects and most PSAs merely repeat the same message - one that does not even mention the word "antenna",[17] merely directing viewers to a website for info. While the focus is largely on replacing TVs or deploying government-subsidized converter boxes, an estimated 40 million Americans will need to install outdoor antennas to reliably receive a digital signal with any tuner.[18] Many affected viewers are low-income, elderly, without Internet access, or do not speak English as their first language. Very little government money has been allocated to informing consumers[19] and in many cases, electronics retailers are adding to the confusion by advising clients to buy inappropriate equipment or more equipment than they need.[20]

Again, this talk of antennas, PSAs and consumers getting sold stuff they don't need relates to the DTV transition as a whole.

Most stations broadcast the same DTV-related PSAs on their analog channels as on subchannels that are already digital or distributed through subscription-TV operators. The rare exceptions have been one-time publicity stunts such as a cautiously pre-planned demonstration in which KVBC-TV weather announcer Dana Wagner was depicted "pulling the plug" on the station's analog signal, followed by an image of static (overlaid with text offering "DTVanswers.com 1-888-DTV-2009" as a source for more information) on the over-the-air NTSC version of the local newscast[21] while the DTV and cable television versions of the very same broadcast were allowed to continue normally.[22]

Again, the PSAs have more to do with the DTV transition in the United States as a whole. Also, the sources cited aren't reliable.

There have been complaints by groups such as Consumer Reports publisher Consumers Union that, while the majority of Americans are aware of the digital transition, most "are confused about whether they're affected, what they need to do to prepare"[23] due to government reliance on broadcasters and the electronics industry to inform consumers.[24] Many who are unaffected (such as cable and satellite viewers) mistakenly believe they will soon need converters or new television receivers, while some who are affected by the terrestrial DTV transition remain unaware that they stand to lose their signals.

Again, this confusion has more to do with the transition as a whole.

In some markets, satellite television subscribers remain unable to receive local stations without an antenna,[25] so are partially affected. Suitable antenna choices may also change as stations move to their final frequency assignments in 2009; many "HDTV compatible" antennas bear the designation solely because they're designed for use primarily on UHF, the current home of most terrestrial DTV. Many stations are returning to their original VHF frequencies but must wait until analog transmission ends to do so.[26]

This is the third time antennas are mentioned. Again, this article is about the boxes, not the antennas or DTV reception in the United States as a whole.
The way the boxes are being promoted in the PSA's suggests that they are a complete solution; that antennas aren't mentioned is a serious issue given the digital cliff effect, combined with the move to higher frequencies and/or lower power in digital. See 8VSB for the limitations of these devices with indoor antennas; the issue was raised at least as far back as 2000 and is not a trivial one. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 12:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Even some buyers of new television receivers remain unaware that they may need the subsidized converter boxes; while all new production of television tuning devices (including television sets, DVD recorders and personal computer video capture cards) for the US market must be ATSC-compliant, vendors are free to sell existing analog inventory[27] with (effective as of May 25, 2007) the disclaimer:

Consumer Alert
This television receiver only has an analog broadcast tuner and will require a converter box after February 17, 2009 to receive over-the-air broadcasts with an antenna because of the Nation's transition to digital broadcasting. Analog-only TVs should continue to work as before with cable and satellite TV services, gaming consoles, VCRs, DVD players, and similar products. For more information, call the Federal Communications Commission at 1-888-225-5322 (TTY: 1-888-835-5322) or visit the Commission's digital television website at: www.dtv.gov.

Despite the legally-imposed labeling requirements, the Federal Communications Commission reports that new analog TVs remained available in 2008 with no "Consumer Alert" labels through many well-known US electronics retailers including Amazon, Best Buy, Circuit City, CompUSA, Fry's Electronics, KMart, Newegg, Radio Shack, Sam's Club, Sears, Target, Toys R Us and Wal-Mart.[28]

Another passage that has to deal with the transition as a whole, not directly related to converter boxes.

Some concerns have also been expressed that small self-contained battery-powered analog TV's will not be a usable source of disaster and emergency information when land-based power and cable connections fail. While some converters do use external 12-volt AC adapters as their power supplies, this is poorly documented and no efforts have been made by manufacturers to facilitate battery operation. Small portable receivers without external antenna or video inputs will be difficult to use with external set-top boxes of any kind.

This passage is uncited. Also, this paragraph implies that television is the only method of getting information in a disaster, when battery powered radios can be used as well.

Meanwhile, it remains probable that incumbent wireless carriers bidding on the newly-freed 700MHz channels made available by the mandatory DTV transition will engage in "spectrum warehousing", leaving the bandwidth vacant for up to four years and building no physical network but effectively tying up allocations in a few key markets to prevent new entrants from deploying a complete national footprint.[29]

This also relates to the DTV transition as a whole. Also, it is highly speculative.

Requested move

I think that this article should be moved to TV Converter Box Coupon Program. The article itself is about the coupon program and the specification the program uses, not about the converter boxes as the article's current name "Coupon-eligible converter box" would imply. "TV Converter Box Coupon Program" is the official name as per http://www.ntia.doc.gov/dtvcoupon/index.html --Jtalledo (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This article already badly overlaps others, including digital television adapter and Digital Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005. The move which you propose will not fix this, and this article has already been moved at least once (from CECB). I see nothing that moving it again will accomplish, unless a suitably-broad title and content is used to merge all three of these (plus whatever you've removed from them) into one larger article such as Digital television in the United States. You also went a wee bit too far in removing content, items such as analog passthrough (or the problematic lack thereof) are specific to the boxes - a DVD recorder or digital television set tunes analog channels just fine. The boxes being advertised as a quick-fix for the 70 million sets expected to lose over-the-air analog TV, with no mention of the need for millions of new antennas, is also a problem with the way the coupons (and boxes) are being promoted by the federally-mandated public service announcements. All or part of what you've done should be reverted and the move in the form you propose it should not be made. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 01:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Good point. The scope of the each article is kind of muddled. As for the complaints section, I still don't think that overtly long, unfocused series of passages should be reintroduced. I'll annotate the passages in the earlier section with some rationale. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe there needs to be one article on ATSC as a standard, one on the political, technical and economic history of DTV transition in North America and the obstacles encountered along the way, and no more than one or at most two on the coupon programme itself and the the actual individual boxes. As it stands, what we have is a mess of overlapping articles created with no clear plan as to what belongs where. Three or more articles about these boxes, then nothing about the various coupon-ineligible devices (such as TV's, DVD or DVR units) and no mention that, without the proper antenna, all of this is basically useless in many viewing locations? Neither the digital cliff effect, the need for analog passthrough, the question of spectrum warehousing nor the number of available coupons vs. TV's in need of conversion is idle speculation. There is no shortage of cited sources for this info, including government, broadcasters and entities like Consumer Reports; what's missing is a clear plan for what goes where in the encyclopedia for DTV. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The naming question appears to already be under some form of discussion at DTV transition so I shall move this question there. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Data Please

How many coupons have been requested so far? Sent? Used? When is the supply projected to run out? How about some data graphs? -69.87.203.112 (talk) 00:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/22/technology/22digital.html

In Move to Digital TV, Confusion Is in the Air
By ERIC A. TAUB
Published: December 21, 2008

"About 40 million coupons have been requested, but to date 16 million have been redeemed, compared with an estimated 35 million televisions that will lose a signal. Adding to the problem: people who obtained coupons early this year, but never redeemed them, have discovered that they expire after 90 days. They are not allowed to reapply for vouchers (though they could use someone else’s coupon)...

Mandated by Congress, the expiration feature puts the unused money allocated to the program back into the system to help finance other consumers’ purchases, said Meredith Baker, the deputy assistant secretary of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. The program now has enough money to finance the issuance of 56 million coupons." -69.87.199.248 (talk) 03:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

There are also some stats posted on the NTIA coupon site itself; see talk:DTV transition in the United States as the question here merely duplicates one already posted there. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 09:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

cONVERTER bOX cOUPON

i WOULD LIKE TO TO GET A COUPON. pLEASE TELL ME WERE TO GET ONE FROM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.31.103.161 (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Try http://dtv2009.gov - there is a waiting list, but additional money was added to the programme as part of President Obama's appropriations bill on February 17, 2009 (the original deadline, and a date on which over 400 of the 1800 US full-service TV stations were to turn off analogue after all). There have also been some limited attempts both by media such as retrevo.com and by local broadcast and public-service groups to match viewers who have unused coupons with those in need of same. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know what company made the coupons?

Thanks - wondering if it has a magnetic stripe on the back.

68.32.9.140 (talk) 18:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I think they were IBM and they did have a magstripe. Maybe one of the news articles from the "DTV Delay Act" and the coupon programme's extension would have info as the government would have had to buy and issue more cards at that point in the transition. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Problems we're not being told about

I plan to cover this issue in more detail on another web site[3], but if my experience reflects what is really going on, the transition is not going smoothly for a lot of people.

I can't find sources that back up my experience, but this is just a suggestion that something is going on and it should be reported, as well as covered in this article and others.

In brief, my experience has been the following:

On February 21, 2009, I hooked up converter box no. 1. This was merely to pick up stations not considered to be in my market by the cable company, as well as to provide backup if the cable went out. No real problems, other than the fact some stations were too far away for the type antenna I had.

On June 14, 2009, I hooked up converter box no. 2. The antenna picked up all the channels after I figured out how.

On June 28, 2009, I turned on the TV with converter box no. 2 and picked up no channels at all. This had happened with converter box no. 1, but I remembered the difficulty I had in connecting the wire between the antenna and the converter box. In the earlier incident, I just had to reconnect the wire and all was fine on the first box. The same thing had happened with converter box no. 2. I bumped into the wire. I moved the TV so that wouldn't happen again. But I still received no channels. I rescanned because it was the only thing I could think of. All was fine.

On July 5, 2009, the TV with converter box no. 2 picked up no channels. The antenna was plugged in and working fine. I rescanned and everything was fine; I was even picking up two stations I had not before, because I had turned the antenna while trying to figure out what was going on.

I called the converter box manufacturer and was told that, based on what I said, the converter box was fine and I should call the FCC's number. The man who answered heard my descrition and said it was a defective converter box and to call the mnanufacturere back and don't let them talk me into anything. the second person from the converter box company said they just didn't want to be bothered because they were getting a lot of calls, but a lot of people were having the problem and it was not the converter box. He said the FCC was responsible for the whole transition and to call them back. The woman who answered the FCC's number said the FCC's job was merely to help me get reception. It was obvious the manufacturer did not want to help me, but that there were defective converter boxes, and that I should contact the FTC.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I put this information on another site. It's not the converter box company, because an older TV does just fine with the same model. But the TV with the first converter box I used seems to have a problem with sound quality. I kept the volume between 14 and 18 and now have to turn it up to nearly 40 and it still sounds like archival footage from the 1940s. "Better picture, better sound!" Really? And on that same TV, about half the time on local commercials and syndicated shows, people look like they're in the movie Polar Express.
Everything works perfectly on the other TV, though. But while both TVs have VCRs included, only the TV with the problem has a timer that works. And since it's having mechanical problems, I have to move the tape to the other TV once recording is finished and, boy, is there a difference! I play the tape and I've gone from 2009 back to 1949.
Good luck finding out why (something we need for these articles). See what I said above in this same section.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably best to leave the volume on the converter all the way up and use the TV's volume control. All the converter's volume control can do is weaken the audio, so it's only intended to be of use if you're using a TV which lacked a remote control of its own. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 15:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed some irrelevant text

Maybe I should have put this on the talk page first, but when I was putting a link in the article, I happened to look and see how much information was irrelevant to the converter box concept. I put it in DTV transition in the United States, where I feel it more properly belongs. Is that okay?Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Current problems with this article

{{article issues| trivia = August 2009}}

{{article issues| notable = August 2009}}

$1.34 billion plus the additional money from the DTV Delay Act, and nearly 34 million coupons. Um, no.

{{article issues| update = August 2009}}

I've done that. Maybe it's not as much as what should be done, but I've provided the minimal information.

{{article issues| cleanup = August 2009}}

Anything I edit probably needs cleaning up; I tend to make more messes than I clean up. However, see the above section.


{{article issues| wikify = August 2009}}

I'm pretty sure I have, where I've contributed.

{{article issues| advert = August 2009}}

{{article issues| news release = August 2009}}

I tried to use magazines (or their online versions) and newspapers.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This is gh87, the one who inserted these issues. I don't know why I put them; however, all I can think about is the "Completing the transition". That section is more described and understanding, but it looked almost like a timeline without bullet points and numbers; otherwise, there are too many random dates, and it reads like either a typical newspaper article or something in resemblance of a fansite.
However, I don't know why I put "notability"; yes, DTV Delay Act makes this article more notable, but the program is going to end as the application deadline has already reached and coupons will eventually expire.
As for the sources from newspapers and magazines, they're good sources; I am wondering if academic journals are availble for this article because, as I said, the program is going to end when coupons expire after applications already ended.
I will deleted most of the already-resolved issues and leave some left to be resolved. Can you help me add a few more issues, please? --Gh87 (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Almost forgot: go to {{article issues}} and other template pages for help! --Gh87 (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I just copy the information as I find it, making sure to reword so I'm not quoting exactly unless the quote is so profound it simply must stay in its original form. I figure the important thing is keeping the article updated, but these updates are pretty brief and don't sound encyclopedic. Maybe a timeline of sorts will work.
I can check at a library tomorrow to see if there are academic journals, but I've been using the sources others used. I admit there could be better wording. Maybe when I find more information I can improve it.
I personally thought the section on recent developments would be done more like Wikipedia wanted, seeing as how I was being more careful than previous contributors. Keep in mind the information I moved to DTV transition in the United States. The article was worse before that because it was going off-topic.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

And I am at that library now.

So far, all I'm getting is USA Today, which is not what you wanted. But I can work on the DTV transition article with that.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, nothing useful. I can't even do the history of the converter box program because I can't narrow dates. Someone changed the search methodology on me.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is a holy mess. Okay, the information looks good, but it's hard to integrate new information into it, and I may be doing it wrong. And then there's the matter of the unsourced material.

I don't want to change anything that's there, but it looks weird to have the information from the sources I found in a separate place. And then I can't find sources for the unsourced material.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I received your message, and I think I am not the right person to fully edit some things that must be resolved. In fact, how about sending a request to resolve in Wikipedia projected pages such as Wikipedia:Requests or anything like that? As for how much you have done, I think you did your best, although I can't say it was bad; in fact, if you think you edit the article badly, find a request page like the linked one I gave you. --Gh87 (talk) 06:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for saying I did my best. I could probably do better. I just don't really know what to do in order to properly include my information with what was already there. Finding sources would help, and I think I got a start on it.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know that there is too much detail. The specific requirements of converter boxes have to go somewhere, right?
I have a lot more historical background to add, too. My intention was to do this for the general converter box article which is short on information not specific to the coupon program. But almost everything I can find involves the coupons.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 13:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed the final paragraph of the "Completing the transition" section. I don't really understand how that relates to CECBs at all, but it could be a very useful paragraph for expanding the digital television adapter article beyond just the CECB concept. I'm finding basic information about the idea of a coverter box and dividing it between the articles based on whether the coupon program is mentioned. I have some work to do in getting from the Barton proposal, which is very different from what we ended up with, to the act that passed Congress.

Nothing to report on the transition or the coupon program's end from Broadcasting & Cable, and I haven't looked at other sources. But there was a major devlopment for LPTV which relates to the CECB program. I may have misread the article, but there is a link to it under "References". The way I understand it, analog passthrough was a problem for LPTV. I don't get it; it seems that it would be the other way around. And since analog passthrough being a requirement was part of the CECB program, this is where that detail belongs. Except analog passthrough is only in a minority of the devices. Maybe that's the problem they had with it, but I can't see that in what's written. Maybe I did misread it.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the analog passthrough article has some information. Some of that information needs to go in other artcles, possibly including this one. I don't go to unfamiliar web sites at home, so maybe sometime next week I'll look into the situation. I'm wasting a lot of time I could be spending on other sites, though.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't read the article that carefully. Someone else figured out what needed to be done, and it has been fixed. The changes to my addition look good. I haven't searched for any new information, but I may tomorrow.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Remove Advert Tag

Could someone please remove the advert tag on this talk page? It's generally used only on articles. Another option would be to add the nowiki tag. Thanks. (This page is showing up at articles with a promotional tone) Netalarm 20:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I looked for ways to identify the issues other than with the full template so I could address them individually, but I couldn't find anything. Nowiki works, though.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the "cash for clunkers" external source tag should also be nowiki'd or removed here? This article is about TV converter boxes. --66.102.80.212 (talk)

discussion of the boxes vs. discussion of the government programme

Perhaps this article should be structured in such a way as to entirely separate discussion of the US coupon programme (which has now expired and is of primarily historical interest) from information on the boxes themselves (which evidently will remain in service for many years to come)? Much of the info about the coupon programme was timely a year ago but of marginal importance now. Only problem... there are many set-top box articles and some degree of overlap, so any attempt to refactor is going to trip over many "what goes where" issues. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm amazed I found no source with details of the end to the program.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)