Talk:Digital television transition in the United States/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Four Times Square?

I notice the list of problem markets has been edited to claim that 4 Times Square (Condé Nast building, NYC) somehow represents the solution to not being able to put antennas on Freedom Tower in time for the transition. Is there any reason to believe that this facility represents a solution to the unique multipath interference problems downstate? It would seem that this building (home of most of the Clear Channel Communications radio signals) is being used because the Empire State Building is already badly full, and does not signify that 4 Times Square is actually quite tall enough to overcome the manmade obstacle course of buildings in New York. Claiming that the whole NYC problem was resolved in 2004 by moving to 4 Times Square contradicts other information, such as millions being sunk into distributed transmission system research by the Metropolitan Television Alliance and others post-2004; the WNJU-TV DTx tests were run circa-2006 using a New Jersey site and filling in the signal from 4 Times Square, the MTVA's tests a year later added four transmitters at various locations to test reception at a hundred points scattered across NY/NJ. Odds are, none of the DTS testing would have been worthwhile pre-2004 as ATSC television receivers before that era had such abysmal multipath interference rejection as to be useless in this environment. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Reference correction needed:

{{editsemiprotected}}Reference #2 at the bottom of the page cites the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 as the legislation that mandated the DTV transition. However the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 deals with Medicare/Medicaid bugeting issues. It was the Digital Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005 that should be cited here. Also I think name of the Act bears mentioning in the article itself (maybe in the "Congressional mandate" section), since that is the law that is doing the mandating. (That is what brought me to the article in the first place, to find the name of the law that caused the transition. It was not clear from the article at all.) Clayboy1645 20:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done, and confirmed that the citation now appears to be right - thanks for the correction. ~ mazca t | c 22:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}In the Wilmington test "The test did not include any low-power broadcasters in the area except the low-power CBS affiliate WILM-LP, which will have a digital signal in time for the transition." is incorrect (a low-power TBN repeater was also converted) and needs to be moved to past-tense ("WILM-LD signed on its new digital signal in time for the transition.") The only low-power broadcast not included in this test market switchover was "WMyW" My47 Shallotte.

Catation please. Leujohn (talk) 08:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 Done. Thanks, Martin 14:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}"Starting Sunday, January 4, consumers requesting coupons from the agency’s TV Converter Box Coupon Program will be placed on a waiting list and coupons will be mailed on a first-come-first-served basis, as funds from expired coupons become available. Because of the high demand for coupons, the program reached its $1.34 billion ceiling".[1] (Already cited in coupon-eligible converter box but should be mentioned in the section on the CECB programme here. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Added 23:43, 6 January 2009 by Matt Fitzpatrick (→Coupon program: update: funding ran out)

broadcasters have already switched

I think this article should mention the other parts of the transition -- the broadcasters and the TV manufacturers. After all, no one wants to buy a digital TV unless some broadcaster is transmitting it, no manufacturer wants to build DTV receivers unless someone will buy them, and no broadcaster wants to bother with transmitting in digital unless there is an audience. (This article is currently locked, or I would add this myself).

As of 2006, all US television stations are broadcasting digital television. Most US television stations started broadcasting digital television before 2003. "DTV transition moving forward: FCC says more than 80% of commercial DTV stations are on the air" FCC news release October 16, 2003 As of July 1, 2007, the FCC requires that all TV receivers manufactured or shipped in the US -- televisions, VCRs, DVD recorders, etc. -- must include DTV tuners.[2]

So basically, TV stations required to simulcast digitally since 1998-2003 even though TV receivers weren't required to tune digital signals until 2005-2007. Gotta love it... --66.102.80.212 (talk) 11:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Phoenix DTV test

All Phoenix, Arizona broadcast stations tested their digital systems from 5:23-5:28 MST on 4 December 2008. [3] could somebody please add this to the article68.109.185.65 (talk) 00:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

There are many of these tests for various regions; Nevada will be running a large-scale test on January 12 [4] in order to allow their viewer enquiries to be handled before the January 15 analogue shut off in Hawaii and the Barack Obama inauguration. There may be many others on that date.
WGN-TV ran their tests in November 2008, if you weren't ready you would get Bozo the Clown onscreen.[5] A similar test on multiple Syracuse stations at the beginning of September 2008 found that DirecTV viewers lost WSYR-TV while keeping some other locals in the same market; that test will run again next week.[6]. Buffalo ran a similar test in September[7], Washington (DC) and 29 states conducted one large test on December 17.[8] --66.102.80.212 (talk) 05:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Why the Change? / Possible Reason

There's been no problem w/ TV before. Why change to digital now? I think its the lobbyists for the cable and satellite companies. Most of the ads have been confusing people by telling them that they need to get cable or satellite service to keep watching TV. this would add more customers to these companies while the gov't gets taxes from these businesses and gives some bogus reason like "it frees up space for military communication." 68.198.10.33 (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Follow the money: United States 2008 wireless spectrum auction --66.102.80.212 (talk) 05:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Effectively, the spectrum is a limited resource. Analog signals tends to hog up more bandwidth than digital signals. Adam Y (talk) 06:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Why the lies?

Why are the people being lied to about the transition? The media claims it is to make services more efficient, but Wikipedia claims it is "something else". Powerzilla (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I've read the article. Powerzilla (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Complaints section text (moved from Talk:Coupon-eligible converter box)

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.

The "spectrum warehousing" question is cited; as for the battery-portable TV problem, many available sources:

The days of the self-contained $40 battery-powered portable "tummy TV" are indeed over; the smallest digital portables are $200 and then there's the increased current consumption to run the digital tuner. There are also issues with existing analogue battery-portables offering no video-input jacks and occasionally no antenna terminals. It's not a hopelessly-lost cause, but options are indeed limited and the converter may well end up being worth more than the TV. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 05:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Citations for this section

  1. ^ National Association of Broadcasters: LPTV Answers
  2. ^ CBA: Keep Us On
  3. ^ DTV Now: Community Broadcasters Association
  4. ^ TV Fool: WNPI-DT serves Ottawa... almost.
  5. ^ WPBS-TV digital update
  6. ^ Industry Canada timetable for 2011 DTV transition
  7. ^ The Analog Shutdown, for Better or for Worse
  8. ^ How to use a converter box & antenna to get DTV, Consumer Reports, February 29, 2008
  9. ^ How to survive the digital TV transition, Consumer Reports, February 2008
  10. ^ Consumer Affairs: Consumers Having Problems with Digital TV Converter Coupons
  11. ^ A View from the Digital Divide DTV Front, Tom Allibone, Teletruth
  12. ^ Multichannel News: CEA - More than 50% of US Homes Own a Digital TV
  13. ^ WSKG: Digital TV conversion
  14. ^ IP Democracy: NTIA Chief - We may run out of funds for DTV boxes
  15. ^ U.S. could face glitch in TV converter box program, Reuters, June 10, 2008
  16. ^ Review: Digital converters keep the old tube TV useable, AP: San Francisco Chronicle, April 23, 2008
  17. ^ Gotham Gazette: Counting Down to the Great Television Turnover, Joshua Breitbart, February 26, 2008
  18. ^ As analog shutdown nears, antenna reality emerges, Broadcast Engineering, Jun 9, 2008
  19. ^ Flow TV: The DTV Tsunami Approaches
  20. ^ The Post and Courier: Impending switch to digital TV leaves some consumers confused, Kyle Stock, Charleston SC, February 25, 2008
  21. ^ Vegas over-the-air TV viewers ace analog shutoff test, May 8, 2008
  22. ^ TV Snob: Digital TV Transition 2009
  23. ^ Consumers' Union: 74% of Consumers Who Know About Digital TV Transition have Major Misconceptions, January 30, 2008
  24. ^ NPR: All Things Considered, February 12, 2008 · A Year Out, Digital TV Picture Still Far from Sharp, by Joel Rose
  25. ^ WWNY-TV establishes DTV transition blog to accept DTV questions from viewers, April 2008
  26. ^ FCC TV Query for DTV construction permits, VHF 2-13
  27. ^ http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/digitaltv.html
  28. ^ http://www.fcc.gov/eb/dtv/lalea.html
  29. ^ Popular Mechanics: Everything You Always Wanted to Know About the 700-MHz Auction but Were Afraid to Ask

Patent nonsense

There are growing complaints from manufacturers that the cost of making digital television receivers is being arbitrarily inflated by the use of patented technology in the ATSC standard. Vizio Fights Back at ATSC Licensing Fees, Doug Lung, TVtechnology.com, Jan 09.2009 cites Visio, an HDTV original-equipment manufacturer, as claiming that it is estimated that in 2008 and 2009 alone, "The aggregate royalty cost to American consumers will be well over one billion dollars for fees that would total only about $65 million in Europe and Japan." This isn't the first time a manufacturer has raised the issue; should it not be noted here? --66.102.80.212 (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

MATV?

I notice there is little or no mention of MATV (master antenna television), systems installed in apartment buildings where one antenna per channel is mounted on the roof to feed TV signal to the individual apartments. I'd suspect that many of these systems have been left to fall apart by landlords as over-the-air TV loses viewers to cable television, but the one-antenna-per-channel model is going to leave buildings with the wrong antenna pointed at the wrong channel in many instances as stations move from analogue VHF to digital UHF on new channels. That the original antenna setup was often 1970s-era or worse and often VHF-only doesn't help matters. Unfortunately, quality sources for info on these are limited in number; a search turns up a limited amount of info from discussion forums used by installers but so little WP:RS that I have to wonder if these systems are even still being maintained. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Local tests

Proposal: To reduce the temptation to turn this section into an overly-long catalog of tests being run across a country where they're now fairly commonplace, a sentence should be added to the end of this section generally noting that as the deadline approached local digital-readiness tests (particularly during evening news broadcasts) became common across the country. Thoughts? Townlake (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps note the first of the tests (which I think was the Las Vegas station?), state that many more had been run nationally and mention any specific dates where statewide or larger collections of stations ran the test on the same day (for instance, Jan 12 '09 had many tests in various markets across multiple states, including all of Nevada, as it falls before the Jan 15 Hawaii analogue shutoff date and the Jan 20 Obama inauguration). I doubt we can list them all, though. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 10:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Denver

Denver was listed in the article as a problem market because of multipath interference and because of local NIMBY problems in getting taller towers onto Lookout Mountain, Colorado. Ultimately, the federal government did order the new towers built over local objections. Is it still a problem market? From this it would seem that there still is a "dead zone" in coverage to the west as stations attempted to appease local groups; any better source on the issue or the amount of coverage lost? --66.102.80.212 (talk) 10:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

data?

Where is the data? How many CECB coupon vouchers have been applied for? How many redeemed? How many expired? How many outstanding? How many more remain to be requested?

Where are the figures on the total cost to US society of this transition? How many million good CRT TVs dumped on the curb, and good VCRs, at what cost (financial, environmental, etc), by this forced tech obsolescence? -69.87.203.176 (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like more than 40 million coupons have been requested, and more than 16 million coupons have been redeemed as of December 11, [9] no ability to reapply for coupons after they expire,[10] eight million (7.4% of all US households) have no cable, no dish and no coupons yet[11] and the money for the coupon programme will run out in January at current rates[12] falling about $300 million short of what is needed[13] as only 62% of those who need the coupons have already requested them[14]. Even if the coupons were to remain orderable in January,[15] no guarantee they'll arrive before viewers are reduced to watching a blank screen or (worse yet) capturing Kingston's worst signal across the border. As for dumping the working CRT's on the kerb, dunno, the city won't take them here, Sally Ann won't take anything over five years old, Savers/Value Village won't touch it, MOD shop already has too many and doesn't want more. The local computer store wants $25 to destroy a working colour TV as hazardous waste. Otherwise - either dump it on Craigslist (if anyone will take a working TV) or hurl it over a digital cliff, I guess? --66.102.80.212 (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

How many televisions in landfills?

A couple of sources are indicating that there are going to be problems with dumping of old analogue TV's, many of which contain lead, mercury or other toxins, but still no hard data on how many TV's will be dumped:

There are additional sources, including one estimating 1 in 4 US households will discard a TV in the next year and another that 99 million TV's are in storage, unused, in the US alone. I've moved this to Digital_television#Environmental_issues as it is unlikely the problem will remain confined to the US. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Why was February 17th chosen? (i.e.: Snow on roofs in winter!)

Someone needs to deal with the topic of why the date of February 17th chosen. I can't find reputable references to it anywhere. I'm not usually one to believe in conspiracies, but this one sure smells like one.

February is in... (drumroll here) WINTER!!!

Who in their right mind would want to climb up onto a snow and ice covered roof in winter to adjust or replace their rooftop antenna? Nobody I know.

On the other hand, if I was a Cable TV and/or Sattelite TV lobbyist, I sure would be interested in the FCC placing a transition date in winter.

SOMEONE Who knows the facts, or where they can be found, please insert your two cents worth. LP-mn (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It was after the Super Bowl but not late enough to interfere with March Madness. Priorities... --66.102.80.212 (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Well its not like they haven't been pounding it into your head for the past 4 years, giving you plenty of time to prepare. Lets see according to my calculations that's...4 summers. So if you lose TV signals on February 17 its your own fault. And the cable and satellite industries have nothing to do with it. The public safety industry should be the one to blame for the "conspiracy". The whole idea of reassigning tv frequencies for public safety was decided in the wake of 9/11, when the NYPD and FDNY radio systems failed. So I guess the true ones to blame are the terrorists. No wait according to you conspiracy theorists that was the government's idea. So I guess you're right it IS a government conspiracy! TomCat4680 (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Wrong. The coupon programme and the PSA's have been running for a little under one year, not four. If you were to have attempted to purchase a DTV tuner four years ago, you may have found little or nothing available and additional costs (compared to non-digital receivers) to be in the $500 range. Any receivers made that long ago could also have some severe multipath interference rejection problems, as the technology to try to fix the broken North American 8VSB system only dates back to 2004 or so and would just be starting to appear in TV's. As for this having anything to do with 9/11? You have been fooled... this mess dates back to the attempts by the land-mobile lobby to take radio spectrum away from broadcast television and re-allocate it to cellular telephone companies in the 1980's and 1990's. The six broadcast engineers who were murdered as part of the September 11, 2001 attacks on WTC were broadcasting digital signals not only at the moment of their demise but for three years previous (DTV existed in the ten largest markets, including NYC, since 1998). Furthermore, 14 of the 18 channels being taken away from broadcast TV went not to public safety but directly to the auction block, where they were sold to AT&T, Verizon and Qualcomm for a tidy $19 billion. Part of that money was supposed to pay for the converter boxes - but somehow less than a tenth of it went to the coupon programme, and none of it goes to broadcasters forced to spend close to a million dollars per full-service station to convert studios and transmitters. As for the failure of public safety communications on 9/11 or during Katrina? One key factor which you miss is that the WTC was the base station for much of NYC radio and communication, so its failure takes down many links - much like in a Katrina-sized hurricane those tall antenna towers are the first to go. More spectrum isn't going to save this mess if the antennas are in pieces under rubble on the ground. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Reassigned frequencies

The reclaimed channels will be used for a variety of service, including MediaFLO (55), DVB-H (52/54), public safety (60/61 base, 68/69 mobile), and mobile phones (in a band that is not used anywhere else).

That doesn't look right; while MediaFLO (55) is correct, the former Aloha Partners allocations were 54/59 not 54/52 - and won't be being used for DVB-H as they've been resold to AT&T for mobile 'phone use. While much has been made of the reservation of four of the eighteen channels for public safety (to distract the public from the billions of dollars changing hands in spectrum auctions), these reserved channels appear to be 63/64 and 68/69; there is a system to be built on Long Island, New York on 64, for instance. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Delayed til June 12, 2009

Congress has postponed DTV Transition til June 12, 2009. Anyone want to make the corrections to the article?

Source:
URL: http://www.wbaltv.com/digital-tv/18636478/detail.html
Title: Congress Postpones DTV Transition To June
Date: February 4, 2009

--Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 22:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

What happens next with DTV Delay Act?

Can someone who understands Congressional rules and procedures explain how the Democrats would proceed from here (if it's possible at all). Nothing I read seems to explain how the bill would/could be passed with a simple majority (and how much time that would take). --Datapolitical (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


President Obama signed it into law on February 11.TomCat4680 (talk) 11:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

List of stations switching early, list of stations not

How are we going to handle this?Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I already added a link to the complete list. Its too large and its unnceccessary to add it to this page.TomCat4680 (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite introduction to take delay into account

The way the introduction is currently worded implies at first that the February 17 date is still in force, before mentioning the delay in the next paragraph. This definitely needs to be rewritten. I can't do it, though, because the article is semi-protected. 67.150.253.214 (talk) 07:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, the facts are correct. The original legislation was for 2/17.TomCat4680 (talk) 07:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess I was the first one to mention to the possibility of a delay, and I did that in the "Congressional mandate" section. Once others had created the section about the delay and I had contributed to that section as well, and once the legislation actually passed, I added a link at the end of the "Congressional mandate" section so people would know where it was.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Broadcast translators, upcoming shortages of CECB's

A couple more points which need to be addressed:

These points are raised in the CECB and broadcast translator articles, but do warrant at least a mention here.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will give $650 million for convertor box coupons and new public service announcements. The second bullet is speculative and therefore a violation of WP:CRYSTAL.TomCat4680 (talk) 11:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The broadcast translator problems are not idle speculation as there are government statistics indicating over 4000 translators are licensed, of which less than one quarter had applied for a $US1000 federal grant to subsidize their conversion to receive DTV. There are also mainstream media reports to corroborate this as being a potentially-severe problem for many communities. As for the PSA's? The US government was never reimbursing broadcasters for revenue lost by broadcasting DTV PSA's instead of ads for paying clients, that much isn't going to change. Adding funds to the coupon programme is a separate issue from that of the supply of the boxes themselves running out next month - the coupon is useless if there are no converter boxes on store shelves, and CEA is estimating that could happen sometime next month based on current inventory levels. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 15:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

A full list of US full service television stations was posted to the Federal Communications Commission website [16] on February 10, 2009; it lists 491 of the approximately 1800 stations as terminating analogue service on February 17, as well as nearly 200 additional stations which were already digital-only. Most likely to leave the air in February were analogue signals from noncommercial or educational broadcasters, small-market stations and independents. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 01:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I added the link.TomCat4680 (talk) 10:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} From CECB, but may warrant a mention here:

Of approximately 1800 full-power US TV stations, nearly 200 were digital-only or ceased analogue broadcasts before February 17, 2009 with an additional 491 slated to leave the air on the 17th.[1] The Federal Communications Commission is opposing or applying additional restrictions to the shutdown of 123 of these stations,[2] primarily in markets where the only analogue service remaining after the February 17th shutdown is an independent or educational broadcaster.[3][4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.80.212 (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I added the exact numbers to the article already with a different source.TomCat4680 (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Already done Leujohn (talk) 06:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Translators

How is this being handled? I don't know if Wikipedia mentions this.

See the section about the digital transition in the WLOS article, and the list of translators in that article. Sorry, I didn't take the time to put a link to my source, but it can be easily found.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Translators are not subject to the DTV transition since they're not full power stations.There's no deadline for them to go digital.TomCat4680 (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Translators are affected in a few ways:

  • The signal of the originating station, which the translator normally would receive over-the-air, is affected by the digital transition. It's moved to another channel, often across bands, and needs to be converted back to analogue *if* it still can be received at all. Some translators can no longer even see their originating stations and may need to be satellite-fed if they are to remain in operation.
  • The channels on which the translators rebroadcast may be being removed from television use (if in the UHF 52-69 range) or may be subject to co-channel interference as full-power stations put digital signals on-air on new channels. These translators will need new channel assignments and (usually) new callsigns.

Complicating matters further, many of these are small operations funded by municipal-level groups which often have no financial ties to the originating stations. Often, these are put on-air and all but forgotten, running unattended for years. The readiness of most of these transmitters is a huge unknown. The issue is addressed at Broadcast translators#Digital_transition but I've added some of the most-affected US states to the list of problem markets here. Individually, these are tiny, but there are more than four thousand of them nationwide. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


Sound problems

I thought digital TV sound was supposed to be perfect. When I finally picked up my first digital station after setting up the converter box, there was almost no sound. I didn't know just what to do, but I turned up the volume from about 15 to more than 30. I was hearing a buzzing noise like I sometimes get with interference on analog, though sometimes I don't hear the noise any more. Does anyone know what might cause this or if it's something that needs to be addressed in one of the articles?Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Check the cables between your convertor box and TV. You might have put the something in the wrong hole. (Yellow is for video, red and white are for audio, make sure the colors match).TomCat4680 (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It said I could just use the one that came with the box. A single cable. And there are directions for putting that in the right holes.

What worries me is the connection between the cable and the antenna isn't that good. It pops out if I move the thing. Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

If the converter's remote control has a volume adjustment, turn that one all the way up and then use the TV's remote control to set the volume normally. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Since I don't intend to use the TV again for analog (it's just too confusing, and on June 12 it becomes pointless, I think I'll just leave it. But thanks. I was trying to determine if the article might say anything.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Virtual channels

How is this being handled? I went to the articles for three stations in my area that have already gone digital and updated them. Because two of the three continue to use their old analog channel numbers as part of their name, the reason for this should be mentioned. I wonder how many people know that the actual channel number shown in the infobox is not the one they want to tune to. The virtual channel will usually be the old analog channel, though the actual digital channel is the one you need to know for selecting an antenna or how to use the antenna.

On a related note, these articles still had the old analog power. This is useful information since I found out why I wasn't picking up one of the three stations: they have significantly reduced their power! And gone to VHF, which doesn't do as good a job as UHF for a digital signal. It's a good thing I got cable. Of course, one reason I did was that some of the stations with more powerful signals are just too far away.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It's important to differentiate between the virtual channel and the physical channel, but both need to be on all articles. TomCat4680 (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been listing physical channel as "digital" and virtual channels as "subchannels" where I've encountered this in infoboxes, but {{infobox broadcast}} instances are a mess right now - many stations have gone from VHF analogue/UHF digital back to VHF digital-only so that "316kW analogue, 1000kW digital" might need to be 25kW or less after this is done. Best to use the {{TVQ}} FCC lookup to find the power levels and channels in use after transition, as it's going to take much time and effort to repair the listings here. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 15:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's so confusing about it? I have a station here that, after the transition, will be virtual channel 27 but the actual physical channel is 10. That seems easy enough to understand. Plus the boxes are designed to automatically scan all physical channels from 2 to 69, and the user will never need to do any manual tuning. ----- 23:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
The confusing part is that the articles need to show what is happening, just in case. I can't get the converter box to tune to WFMY except with the physical channel, which is what someone at the station advised me to do. Plus you need to know whether you're tuning in a VHF or UHF channel because the antenna setups are different.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Try resetting the box (deleting everything that was previously saved and starting fresh). I had the same experience with WMYD when it transitioned to digital early, channel 20 (its virtual channel and former analog) was already saved on my TV, so it falsely displayed 21 instead (its physical channel). I reset my memory and it displayed everything properly. My TV has a buiilt in ATSC tuner though so it might not work for you, but give it a shot. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

VCRs, DVDs and DVRs

I haven't found a specific source for this. But my own personal experience is this: I saw an article in a newspaper or somewhere saying that if you want to set a time and a channel for recording shows, you must get a DVR. So I asked at Sears. I was told at one time that a VCR should work, but later when I specifically asked about setting a channel, I was told that wouldn't work. But setting a time to record would if I left the TV on the channel I wanted to record.

In fact, it won't. Last night I tried it for the first time. I got only static, even though it recorded at the right time. I had the VCR (actually, the TV and VCR are one unit, and I have five of these because they were simpler to deal with; two work fine because I got cable for those) set to tape channel 3. This is where I watch my digital channels. All I got was static, even though the last time I turned on the TV before that, it went automatically to digital 48.

It should also be noted that if you want to set a channel, only one of the devices Sears sold would do it. The DVR they sold would not because they didn't have a digital tuner. There are VCRs with digital tuners, but they only sold a VCR-DVD player which burned DVDs but didn't record on VHS. I had to get a TiVo from Radio Shack, which was cheaper than I expected. I haven't set it up yet.

All of these issues need to be addressed somewhere.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

VCR's are analog (obsolete) technology and won't record digital signals. No offense but the person at the store is obviously more clueless than you. Get a DVR, they're digital and record all digital signals. Of course you'll need a digital convertor box if you don't have cable or satellite service.TomCat4680 (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Your information is not necessarily correct. And i appreciate the advice, but this is about the articles. DVRs do not necessrily have digital tuners, while VCRs can.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No, you have it backwards. VCR's are analog technology, DVR's are digital. This is why you can't record digital channels on VCR's like you obviously failed at before. Just get digital cable with a DVR and stop using obsolete technology.TomCat4680 (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, you're talking about something different.

I've got Ti-Vo but haven't hooked it up yet. I was trying to do something they said I could do. And all of this needs to be explained to people who have been told repeatedly in the publicity that VCRs will continue to work.

And the VCRs do work with regular cable.

I'll look for sources and post my findings in the appropriate articles.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm confusing you again. I meant if you plug an antenna directly into a VCR with nothing in between you'll only receive analog signals, since VCR's don't have ATSC tuners. I haven't bought one in 10 years though so I'm not sure. If you have a digital convertor box between the 2 though it should get digital OTA signals and be able to record them.TomCat4680 (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to get advice on what people reading these articles need to know. Let me describe it to you in more detail. The antenna, which is plugged in so as to receive a digital signal, has a cable going into a converter box. The converter box has a cable going into a combination TV/VCR, one unit, which I have five of. The timer allows the VCR to select a channel at a set time if the TV is off. When the TV turns off, though, the converter box doesn't necessarily stay on (if it does merely turning on the TV gives me the digital channel immediately), so sometimes I have to turn it on when I turn the TV on. The channel can be the one I'm going to tape (in this case 3, though 4 is also used), but if the unit is incapable of just leaving it on the channel and think it has to change even though it's not changing, this would likely mess up the converter box too. But that would require turning the tV on to turn the converter box back on, which would require me to be there and defeat the whole purpose of setting the timer. When I have Ti-Vo working the problem will be solved. For now, I can press the "record" buttonm when the TV is on and it will record, even a digital channel.

As to why I have so many of these, I kept buying them until I couldn't find them because they were cheap and I didn't have tofigure out how to hook two separate units together. Two of the five have cable going directly in to them and they work as before, except of course the channel numbers are different and some of the channels are digital only before they get to the cable company. One more unit isn't hooked up to anything; there's a bad tape stuck in it. I'll use it with a converter box and another antenna. Or I might use another unit, currently hooked to rabbit ears since there are still analog stations, on which I can't set a timer (it does have the feature but I've never gotten it to work) but I can push the button and record.

The objective now is to translate all this into readable Wikipedia articles. But all of the above is original research, so I still have more research to do when I can find the time at a library.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I did find where the issue had been addressed. Digital TV#Effect on existing analog technology.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Apology

I wanted to apologize to Vchimpanzee for TomeCat's behavior. IMHO his attitude was rude ("as clueless as you"), condescending ("stop using obsolete technology"), and also flat wrong ("VCRs won't record digital television"). The last one can not be helped since it's just lack-of-understanding on Tom's part, but the first two are contrary to Wikipedia's principles. We're supposed to be POLITE to other editors, not like grumpy grandpas.

I'm an electrical engineer, and I still use both an analog VCR and an analog DVR. In order to make them work with DTV you must have an external tuner box, and you need to set your VCR/DVR to record the output from that box. In my case it's either L-1 or F-1 for the line input. ----- Zinwell and Dish both sell external tuners that will automatically change channels. If for example you want to tape Jay Leno at 10 p.m. and David Letterman at 11:30, you can program these tuners to switch from NBC to CBS at the appointed times. The analog VCR/DVR will continue recording the L-1 or F-1 video.

I've tried both of these boxes and found their reception to be poor and picture-quality to be blurry. Therefore I keep a Channel Master 7000 converter box with S-video as my main viewing box, and only break-out the VCR-friendly boxes as a last resort. In many cases the shows are available online at sites like hulu.com or cwtv.com, and my VCR sits idle. (Aside - The CM7000's S-video recording fed to a Super VHS VCR creates recordings that look indistinguishable from a store-bought DVD!)  :-) ---- Theaveng (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

There's no such thing as an analog digital video recorder. All DVR's have ATSC tuners built in and can downconvert the digital signals to analog for viewers with analog TV's. Just clearing up the confusion, not trying to be insulting. TomCat4680 (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Splitting someone's post in the middle is yet *another* example of poor netiquette TomCap. So too is correcting another user's mis-spellings or otherwise editing them. I have restored my post back to its original whole (including misspellings). As to your comment: I have a Panasonic ReplayTV DVR that does not include an ATSC tuner; it's an analog-only NTSC recorder so you're statement is incorrect, and it is why I referred to it as an "analog DVR". It is also why I said you need an external converter box for the analog DVR. ---- Theaveng (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
At least some earlier DVRs do not have ATSC tuners built in, according to the TiVo article:

Note, however, that the S2DT, unlike earlier units, cannot record from antenna. This is due to an FCC mandate that all devices sold after March 2007 with an NTSC tuner must also contain an ATSC tuner. TiVo therefore had to choose between adding ATSC support, or removing NTSC support. With the S2DT they opted to remove NTSC, the Series3 supports NTSC and ATSC, along with digital cable channels (with CableCards).

Just clearing up the confusion. — Ken g6 (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I stand corrected. I always thought digital video recorder meant digital tuner. My mistake. TomCat4680 (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)



Its TomCat. Why are you resurecting a thread from the archives anyway? Who are you and what's your problem? Stop hounding me. I can apologize for myself if the need be. TomCat4680 (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to Vchimpanzee who you were abusing. There's no excuse for that. None. AND I resurrected the thread because it's only two months old, and I had additional information I wanted to add about analog VCRs/DVRs [and how to record using them]. ---- Theaveng (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't abusing anyone, and Vchimpanzee never took it that way either.; the only one that was offended by my statements was you. All I said was analog technology and digital technology are generally incompatible and he/she should therefore upgrade their equipment. Also if you read me and Vchimpanzee's talk pages we had a long discussion in which I tried to HELP him/her figure out the problems they were having. So get all of the facts before you jump to conclusions and make judgments. TomCat4680 (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I judge what I see and what I see is a very poor etiquette: rude ("as clueless as you") and condescending ("stop using obsolete technology"). ---- Theaveng (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay I could have chosen better words, I admit that. But what does pointing that out have to do with improving the article, which is the point of talk pages? If you have a problem with something I said (2 months ago mind you), leave me a message on my talk page. Publicly trying to make another user look bad when their intentions were good is called hounding and borderlines on harassment.TomCat4680 (talk) 14:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Public embarrassments should receive public apologies (imho). (shrug) ---- Theaveng (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
If Vchimpazee asks for one, I'll get him it. He obviously weren't offended at all by what I said, like you were, so let it go. TomCat4680 (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

People, please discuss the content of the article, not each others. Let's get back on track here. Equendil Talk 19:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No objections here. I reported Theaveng on WP:ANI and its being taken care of. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

And they determined TomCat was making uncivil remarks toward Vchimpanzee. (shrug). Whatever. ---- Theaveng (talk) 13:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Check your page. and Vchimpazee's. Stop being an instigator. It's over, move on with your life. TomCat4680 (talk) 13:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Differences resolved. Let's drop it.

Thanks everyone for helping. I did see a grammar problem with the above TiVo excerpt (which I fixed, along with an unrelated spelling error), and possibly proof that the man at Radio Shack sold me something useless--though if one of my VCRs connected to cable goes out I'm set. Provided the thing can just sit there until that happens.

More of my personal experiences can be found here [17] and here [18].Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This page is becoming a forum. Stay on topic please. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree. I was only trying to make sure this article or others included the details I was trying to present from my own personal experience, but I have yet to find some of the information in reliable sources. The dispute over what a DVD player is or isn't is based on this one fact: DVR is a storage method, and ATSC is a receiving method. A DVR, apparently, is not required to have an ATSC tuner. That's where the confusion comes from. But I'm basing this on what a salesman told me. It's probably true, but verifying this--if the digital video recorder article needs correcting, which it probably does, based on a quick look--requires finding all the exact model numbers of the units the store sells and finding their details online. Let someone else do it, I say.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Be sure not to confuse Digital Rights Management (what DVR's and DVD recorders use) with digital tuner (what receivers such as TV's and digital coverter boxes use. TomCat4680 (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
It's actually quite simple. Nearly all DVRs/VCRs/DVD recorders have an analog tuner for traditional reception. Some have a digital tuner. Some have both. And some have neither. It varies from unit-to-unit so you need to be sure what you're buying before you buy it. ---- Theaveng (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms

DTV is shit compared to analog transmissions. DTV fails completely if the signal degrades at all, whereas you could still watch a degraded analog signal. DTV is a fraud perpetrated on the American people by cable and satellite companies. When people using only analog reception switch to the federally-mandated DTV method, they will pratically be forced to subscribe to cable or satellite because of the impossibility of watching a program through without complete interuption for several minutes several times. Why doesn't the article mention any of this?

Sounds like POV pushing original research there in terms of the corporate conspiracy. The technical downfalls of DTV are mentioned in the article (digital cliff effect, multipath interference, possibility of incompatibility with older technology, etc). However with the right antenna and an ATSC tuner, you WILL NOT need to subscribe to cable or satellite). The whole point of the transition is to give more spectrum to public safety (police, fire and ambulances). Wouldn't you like to be saved when your house is on fire, or if you got shot or robbed? The September 11 terrorist attacks demonstrated why the system needs to be upgraded, so blame Al-Qaeda if you want to go around pointing fingers. TomCat4680 (talk) 06:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
It looks you're pushing an agenda yourself with the alQueda talk. Anyway, I'd rather not start a fire in the first place, and besides by the time the firefighters show-up the house is just a blackened shell anyway. I've seen that happen twice now; they saved nothing. Plus this channel 52-69 selloff dates back to the 1996 Communications Act, and was politically-motivated with no connection to the events on 9/11.----- The other person is correct that DTV offers fewer choices, with tvfool.com demonstrating that the average viewer's choices will drop from 16 downto 13 stations when they switch from analog to digital in June. ---- Theaveng (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
They did indirectly cause it. Get the 9/11 Commission Report (I've read it cover to cover). NYC's radio system was completely clogged due to lack of spectrum. Research the facts before you make conspiracy theory claims. TomCat4680 (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I';m sorry but I don't see how the events of 2001 could have any effect on the 1996 Telecommunications Act which mandated the switch to digital television. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to how that's possible? ---- Theaveng (talk) 13:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Read the whole book, you'll learn something. I know it doesn't have pictures like books you usually read but you can do it. Anyone with wild corporate conspiracies (in Wiki terms original research and weasel words) that they can't prove no matter how hard they tried probably has paranoid schizophrenia. NYPD's and FDNY's lack of spectrum was the OTHER catastrophe that day. I guess CNN forgot to mention that TomCat4680 (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of WP:NOT#FORUM content

I have removed the discussion about if or not DTV provides more channels. That is irrelevant to this talk page, as is clearly stated at the banner up top. Please refrain from making more discussion not related to the artile itself. We do have a reference desk available to answer some questions. Contributions/67.200.130.130 (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to make sure the content was available here and in other articles. Others misunderstood and treated it like a forum.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes in the post-analog era

I was following TomCat's advice and found an article stating the Chicago has some of the worst problems right now, so I updated the Chicago TV stations' articles accordingly. In the process, I discovered a method for including the virtual channel in the infobox, which most stations' articles don't have.

I have also been going through and fixing articles that don't have the virtual channel in the lead section. Just stations in my area and stations whose articles I am looking at because they are relevant to work I am doing to this article.

But all this needs to be done nationwide. I'm not doing it.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The transition has happened

I know my contributions to the article about what really happened on and since the big day aren't much, but it's just about all we've got for now.

I'm sure others can do better.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure the last section is correctly named. I also used whatever sources I happened to find. In some cases I searched for stories using sources already used in the article. If I happened to find anything while looking for something else, I used it. I have not succeeded in finding a comprehensive article on the nation's readiness or problems, because most local papers print their own local situations.

Although ... there are national sources I have yet to check.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

broadcastingandcable.com and multichannel.com have a ton of info about problems etc, check on those. TomCat4680 (talk) 22:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Once I looked to see what sources had been used before, I found some information in those.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
There was a lot of stuff I didn't see, though. Thanks.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

How does everyone feel about the section name "Problems with the final transition"? It seems like pretty much all that was reported was problems. There were some positives reported in the coverage, but these are pretty much outweighed by everything else.

If anyone thinks it's unbalanced, please find some positives to report. I'm sure there were some.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

My problems are original research

But they're real problems that someone may be having and therefore may have sources we can use. I've covered these on another site[19]. The reasons for my problems may indicate we have some additions to make to some articles.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, finding out information may be harder than I thought. See the link provided.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

July 15 changes

I was just adding a link to the one article that covers cable TV, satellite TV, FiOS and any other means my which people might receive TV signals other than by antenna.

I put the link on the CECB page as well. I made the mistake of looking at what else was there and discovered certain details that really belonged in this article but were not here. They didn't belong there because they weren't about the boxes.

Then I looked around this article and started noticing verb tense changes that have been needed since February! How did we not notice these? We worked hard on this article!Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

DeFazio bill

The more I search for information about this, the more convinced I am that this deserves a section. The problem is there's no progress on it. If the CECB deadline is July 31, they better get to work.

I also noticed Sen. Bernie Sanders was working on this last September, which leads me to believe his comments should go in a section of the article from back when the transition hadn't happened. He was one of the leading proponents of the delay, and some of his comments appeared too slanted to put in the articles. I'm putting the most detailed information about the bill in MVPD.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ FCC list of full-service TV broadcasters; those operating digital-only on or before 2/17 indicated in red.
  2. ^ FCC public notice FCC 09-7, FCC Requires Public Interest Conditions for Certain Analog TV Terminations on February 17, 2009
  3. ^ [FCC Says Some Stations Can't Switch Feb. 17], Kim Hart, Washington Post, February 12 2009
  4. ^ FCC list of stations in markets losing all major commercial networks on 2/17