@Rey: Not necessarily. iDEN phones (NEXTEL) and some CDMA/GSM carriers now use frequencies that are in the same band as police/fire/etc. The DTV switch will allow the cell co's to use the unneeded TV frequencies thus making more room and less interference for public safety.

@quizmasterchris: Acutally, analog TV uses more bandwith than digital. An analog broadcast uses 1 frequency for video and a seperate frequency for audio, then combines them when they get to your TV. DTV is able to use a single frequency for both audio and video. Also, a digital signal is far less susceptible to interference. You cannot have an analog station on channel 12 and one on ch 13 in the city due to interference. With digital this is not a problem. DTV will allow the FCC to use the unneeded frequencies for public safety, cell phones, wifi, or anything else.

@darthmooby: Agreed. Punish the procrastinating couch potatoes.

@ArdellaBanana: How's the weather on your planet?

@logicalnoise: haha, early adopter

@Robert E. Hodge:
Why would they? You're not guaranteed television in the constitution. If you can't afford it, do something about it, or stop your bitching.

That's why I think this is one cog in an enormous scam to stop people from recording & saving TV shows, whether in a soon to be obsolete tape format or to DVDs.
They want you to buy pre recorded DVDs, not make your own!

I'm honestly surprised at the posters who are surprised that Consumers Union, the folks who now own The Consumerist, wouldn't do a little bit of self-promotion of its latest initiative. Feel free to disagree with their stand on this issue (many commenters do and have said so), but save part of that indignation--it'd be a little stupid of CU not to use the medium they own.

I think our current economic slowdown itself is a great reason to promote digital TV, and to simultaneously delay the transition by at least six more months. Money is tighter for most people right now. For the metros that have several local stations, dumping cable & satellite for local DTV should be a money-saver. Promote this.

More importantly, a six month delay would allow more time for the millions of viewers most likely to be shut out to catch up on equipment, and for broadcasters to roll out DTS systems to reach them (in rural areas).

[hraunfoss.fcc.gov]

Lastly, all of you folks who say that TV is not a right are missing the point entirely. There's a reason local stations must post public notices about their operations, programming for children, and why they must publicize their license renewal period so that community viewers may make comments. Terrestrial TV is still important to many. To your same points about being taxpayers who can afford cable, personal choice cuts both ways: Why should they be forced to pay for entertainment and information that is purposely provided free of charge by broadcasters? If anything, they're getting by with less and are being better consumers than you are.

Instead they should change it so that after the switch is made the old methods still broadcast, but only with instructions for switching to digital. Sort of like a government infomercial for an expanded period of time (1-2 months maybe?).

All the procrastinators and those who just havent been paying attention couldnt miss that...

@Ahoatam: Equating TV to oxygen is the most retarded thing I've ever heard.

@Rhayader: I don't see how you can refer to digital reception as better. Digital picture and sound is better. But the actual reception is, as you described, all or nothing. Even analog's snow or ghosting could provide you with usable video and audio information in rural areas.

@CharlieInSeattle: Seriously Charlie, how many news stories did you really hear about the impending switch to digital TV in 2001? Or in 1996, when it was first mandated into law?

The fact that it's been mandated by law for years is really moot considering that the change wasn't front page news that would immediately affect people. Why did anyone in 1996 need to worry about a new TV technology that would be in place by 2009 (nee 2006)?

Late 2007 and counting toward the deadline, so there's easily more of a necessary urgency. Millions of people are going to be shut out of basic TV information, and through no fault of their own--it'll be largely because of the new technology's shortcomings. Consumers Union has a reasonable request to hold off the switch.

The only problem is that the government is taking your perfectly good tv, bought perhaps for a lot of money, and making it obsolete. Yeah, that's great, thanks government for not regulating the TV manufacturers, thereby eliminating this problem at the source before it became a problem for the consumer.
That right there is why the government better pony up. Poorly handled by the government at the detriment to the consumer.

For touting yourselves as such intelligent people, I have to groan at your bewildering lack of common sense.
Dude is not going to hold onto his crappy CRT forever. Dude does not want to shell out anything extra for his crappy CRT. He'd rather buy an HDTV, but doesn't have the full $450 or whatever it is.
You really don't get it? C'mon, this is the Consumerist; we're all trying to not get ripped off, or get a deal on something, or not, you know, waste money. It's not that difficult to understand that he doesn't want to waste $50 upgrading something that has been made obsolete largely because of this transition.

@David Brodbeck: I kinda figure if it looks crappy in the store I shouldn't expect it to look any better when I get it home.

Actually, it does. My husband and I bought a plasma TV a year or so ago. In the store, the picture looked pretty good, but not as good as it looks at home. Why? Because the store has a lot of harsh overhead fluorescent lighting, and they have to adjust the settings to compensate for that lighting. In the end, the picture ends up being compromised. I didn't know this at the time, my husband explained it to me when I expressed the same sentiment you did. When we got it home and hooked it up to the HD cable box with the proper settings, the picture was leagues better than in the store.

@Greasy Thumb Guzik: I had the same thought, and then it struck me that we are at a point that free giveaways immediately make people worry that death will ensue!

But don't worry, there's an even more serious bug coming up in 2038.

Umn, when was the last time you bought a TV? My 27" flat-screen picture tube TV only cost $349, and my 32" LCD tv only cost $550. I've also never seen a "good color TV" for less than $100, even tiny 13" ones, even before inflation.

All I see in this comment thread is someone who doesn't really know what he's talking about.

There are several computer cards you can get with ATSC tuners on them and build your own DVR rather cheaply... and there's open-source as well as proprietary DVR software out there. I know this isn't as simple as buying a VCR, but it would let you record OTA on cheap hardware without paying Tivo anything, and give you something to curse at while building/maintaining it. Add a DVD burner to it and you could easily write recorded shows to disc to take "house to house" and be more likely to be able to play it at someone else's house, because I think that more people have DVD players than have working VCRs these days.

They publish Consumer Reports (not Consumers Report).

And this group likes to spend government money (liberal is an understatement).

Although, what the gov't should have done is roll out the change over the course of a year (at most). Start east and work their way west, that way they can put more focus on the problems that arise with switch in a local area. Why have, for example, 200 hundred employees trying to deal with the entire nation doing the switchover at once when you can focus that couple hundred people in a small region for a couple days, and then move on to the next one.

"switch"

just swith it dammit.

When I visit my parents, they still usually have at least two tvs running when we get there. They'll raise their voices to talk over the tv before they turn it off. Usually the first thing I do after saying hello to them is to walk over and shut the tv off. They don't object when I do it, but if I didn't, it would be on the entire time i was there.

People need to stop acting like they are paying anything into this. They're not. Post-sale, they are better off doing the switch now and getting the funds from said sale minus the cost of the coupons than they would be if the sale didn't happen for another five or ten years as the gov't waited for old analog tvs to phase themselves out.

And I don't care how out of date many might think it is, but what I really want is a VCR with a digital tuner.
And I don't mean one of those insanely overpriced VCR/DVD combos!
The last VCR I bought was $40 from Overstock.
With a digital tuner built in, it wouldn't be more that $70!

You can't carry or move a recording from TV to another TV or house to house on a TIVO easily, unlike a tape.

I hear the "emergency services" part of the justification but never can find any details.

Does this mean police scanners will become obsolete as the police and firefighters use a different band now?

This transition is an improvement, and gives content providers more flexibility and better technology. With the long information and reimbursement campaign we have seen, I fail to see a problem here.

@JulesNoctambule: I would be annoyed, but, I don't need internet either. I could go to the library and access the internet just fine. Just like I see plenty of others do.

Also, digital reception is better than analog reception, provided a strong enough signal is available to reconstruct the digital information. The difference is that there is a digital "cliff", where as a signal degrades, the picture goes from perfect to non-existent pretty much immediately, rather than a slow encroachment of snow and ghosting you get with an analog set as the signal degrades.

@ThickSkinned: Exactly. As someone whose Dad has a 50" HDTV with surround sound, I go there for the important football games. No artifacts, great sound. Plus, they are already discussing ways to use the freed up bandwidth for other uses. Sorry, but technology changes. Yes, you have to spend money to upgrade but TV is not a necessity.

@Chris 'Sparky' Gordon: But you can afford internet, an XBox and Netflix? Sorry, but in the years leading up to the switch, you could have taken that money and saved for a TV. Come on, ALDI's has specials from time to time on TVs that will work. Plus, I doubt it's $100 for Basic. I pay that much for all the cable channel plus an HD-DVR from Comcast. I know the basic channels are only around $15 if you just want local stations plus a few others.

@bnet41: OMG. It's not like the transition is a surprise. If people couldn't figure out a way to deal with it in the years they knew it was coming, then too bad.

How many of the people that still need converter boxes don't really need them. I am sure the reason taht it ran out of money was the large number of people just getting them because they didn't bother researching what was happeneing.

Based on the poll of consumers here, and their comments-should I believe that the consumers union will stop asking for more time after seeing this info. Most of the other companies that see this type of feedback on here respond positively... will this arm of the Consumerist?

Digital TV air reception is better than analog. You get a much clearer picture. However, digital TV has a very sharp reception cliff. Analog TV's picture slowly degrades as the signal gets weaker. Digital's picture stays constant until you reach a certain signal weakness and data loss occurs. Then you get a jumpy/blocky/incomprehensible image.

Why should the government give you a coupon to buy a converter if you don't have a tv? It shouldn't, unfortunately the gov't has no realistic way of knowing if you have one or not. But if you get a coupon and do not use it, the money goes back into the fund when the coupon expires.

Radio may broadcast in digital now, but AFAIK there's no gov't mandate to get rid of analog radio. That's why the government isn't funding any sort of conversion program. Analog radio still exists and works as well as it ever has, and I'm not aware of any plans to change that.

@Pylon83:
Agreed that Zell took on too much debt. However the expense of running both digital and analog at all of Tribune's stations was a contributing factor in not having money to pay toward this debt.

And, yes, I, too, disagree with CU. Can we expect the editors here to be mouthpiece shills for them from now on?

The switch was made to pack broadcast TV in a narrower band, and use part of the analog TV band for emergency services and sell off the rest of the band for other uses.

The government also has good reason to want people to have no problem receiving broadcast TV. In an emergency broadcast TV and radio are excellent ways to inform the public of what to do.

And there still isn't a simple way to record shows if you don't have cable or satellite.
There's only one stand alone non-TIVO hard drive recorder that costs a small fortune.

Only two of the converters are able to be programmed to change channels, something that plain old cable boxes were doing 15 years ago.

This changeover is a scam.

/sarcasm

Anyway, this isn't a bad idea. Although I get my TV from cable, I know a lot of people who aren't into the whole Digital TV thing, and they're fine with analog. They'd rather wait until everyone has it, and then spring for the upgrade.

@Vandon: Using a converter box on an analog TV isn't going to provide a high definition picture. The consumer will have to use 2 remote controls unless they have a universal remote. A VCR will no longer be able to be programmed for recording unless the consumer manually changes the converter box channel.

In other news, Consumerist.com, recently acquired by Consumers Union, can finally afford editors who will proof-read their articles before posting. Long gone are the days where each article resembled something hastily penned by a high-school student without spellcheck. Oh, wait...

bingo.

why not give out coupons subsidizing tv purchases in general, since apparently we have a right to watch tv!!

it doesnt matter if the airwaves are public. they don't give out coupons for wifi, wireless phones, walkie talkies, those all use public airwaves.

not at all misguided, even on smaller older sets having crystal clear dvd quality tv is a vast improvement over analog fuzziness. there are many subchannels, and a channel guide as well. using digital the number of channels/subchannels i have access to now has increased by quite a bit.

Does anyone have any statistics on how many people actually watch tv with rabbit ears anyways?

Please do not delay this any longer.

....But I don't have a tv of my own either.

My friend just got cable last year. It finally came to her area. In the countryside there's next to no options for tv or internet still. It's horrible, but the areas aren't densely populated enough for the companies to consider it a good business deal.

Unless they have TVs away from cable. Some folks have garages that don't have cable run into them, or the cable goes down in their neighborhood and they are out of information. I have advocated all of my friends, even those with cable, get at least one coupon and one box for emergency purposes. Yes, you can blame me for them runing out of coupons (although to be honest I thought they would be out by Labor Day).

I saw that statistic on the news somewhere.. but I think that comment just about proves it.

- A. Consumer

To get all geeky, the cablecos transmit their digital signals in QAM encoding, including unencrypted (or "Clear QAM") broadcast networks (your local affiliates)* and everything else (HBO, Cartoon Network, ESPN, etc) encrypted. You can see the Networks in digital and in HD, especially if you know what you're doing, with an off-the-shelf TV these days, with NO cable box, and without paying for anything beyond basic cable. However, in order to see even basic cable channels in digital (which of course is the only way to transmit HD signals) you need a craptacular cable box or at best a craptacular CableCard for your Tivo.

Anyway, by contrast, broadcast TV uses ATSC which is of course viewable on newer TVs and through little converter boxes.

--
*only because the greedy bastards are required by law to transmit broadcast networks unencrypted.

@David Brodbeck:

Unless you live in Illinois. Then it's definitely not free. My commute costs me $3.20 in tolls each day.

Walmart: A Good Color TV by RCA with both analog and digital (ATSC/QAM) tuners: $114.97.
[www.walmart.com]

Keeping in mind that inflation is real and has increased prices on its own, and that I only checked one store, are you prepared to take back your ridiculous claim? Or should I get off your lawn?

Secondly, your whole premise is flawed: "Before the DTV rules went into effect"--what "rules"? You can still market a NTSC-tuner-only TV--you just have to label it as "will not work with over-the-air broadcasts after 2/2009." Are you advocating that that rule be relaxed so people won't be aware of the potential disappointment they are setting themselves up for?

Finally for the love of god STOP mixing up HDTV and DTV. K? They're two completely different things and you are being part of the problem. Because people like you keep saying HD this and HD that while discussing this DTV switch, you help folks like Best Buy sell HD sets to people who don't need them and can ill afford them.

One more time (this is directed at The Internet, not @David Brodbeck): DTV is not HDTV. Whether you have an HDTV has ZERO to do with whether you're ready to watch over-the-air TV come February, because until recently many HD TV-sets were sold without digital (ATSC) tuners, and because non-HD TV-sets (like the one I linked) can watch DTV easily using either a built-in digital tuner (like the linked RCA set has) or set-top ATSC tuner box like the ones we're discussing in this whole article.

The only digital TV you can't record is cable and satellite, and then you can convert it to SD analog and record it status quo...

The real rural bumpkins are served by translators and Low Powered TV, so they are actually not affected by the transition yet. The bad part is that most translator operators are community organizations or local counties who just won't have the money to upgrade their transmitters to digital.

Tonight I watched the evening news via OTA digital TV on a 15 year old 13" CRT through one of the $40 converter boxes.

Digital is MONSTER better than analog. Ain't no way to compare the two

Notice the age of the TV?

There is the problem with the conversion.... TVs just don't easily die. However, the modern TV is often equipped with a built-in digital tuner.

Oh, and btw, I had to BUY my $40 converter box as business addresses are not eligible for the government coupon.

Bingo! You would think that anyone with access to the outside world and the ability to reply to a blog would be able to figure something like that out.....guess not!

You can't just create more radio frequencies when you need them. We are practically out of them! Analog TV was a great development in it's time. But it is a bandwidth hog! There is a wide range of frequencies that will be freed up, some of them have good characteristics for cellphone use and some have excellent properties for two way radio use.

It's time to pull the plug. I think that the gummint did about the best job that it could possibly do with the transition. And that says alot.

73!

Here's a thought: since the transition has been delayed at least once, and it's six weeks away, do it anyway. Most of the people I have seen using the "coupons" are for tv's in their RV's and mountain cabins.

@David Brodbeck: A goodly portion of the bandwidth is going to consolidate emergency services bands. That is what is meant by public benefit.

No delay.

Boo to the procrastinators, no delay.

No $100.00/month, no $600.00 HDTV.

Knowledge rules.

Oh, wait....

Yes there will be problems but anyone who has not bought their converter box by now will not until their TV goes to static.

I work for a TV station. We had to buy new equipment years ago to be ready for the digital transition and it was delayed. The equipment is aging. Some is already outdated and needs replacement. We have even had to replace major equipment already due to failures. The cost to TV stations is in the millions of dollars and all this spent with no additional revenue.

Several TV station groups have already filed bankruptcy, the latest being Tribune (owners of WGN and the Chicago Cubs). Several have delisted from the stock markets because their value has dropped due to no profits. Running two sets of transmitters replacing equipment at both, additional electricity to broadcast an analog and digital signal.

We had one test in December to let people know with an FCC board member observing and we will have another test on Monday. We have given up air time that we could earn money on to tell people about something that was shoved down our throats.

So please do not say ths TV stations are profiting from this. I just hope to still have a job by 2010 because we are losing money operating this way.

I work for a TV station. We had to buy new equipment years ago to be ready for the digital transition and it was delayed. The equipment is aging. Some is already outdated and needs replacement. We have even had to replace major equipment already due to failures. The cost to TV stations is in the millions of dollars and all this spent with no additional revenue. Several TV station groups have already filed bankruptcy, the latest being Tribune (owners of WGN and the Chicago Cubs). Several have delisted from the stock markets because their value has dropped due to no profits. Running two sets of transmitters replacing equipment at both, additional electricity to broadcast an analog and digital signal.

We had one test in December to let people know with an FCC board member observing and we will have another test on Monday. We have given up air time that we could earn money on to tell people about something that was shoved down our throats. So please do not say ths TV stations are profiting from this. I just hope to still have a job by 2010 because we are losing money operating this way.

Picture it: "Joe's Widget Shack is giving away 100 free DTV converters at the downtown location. Come on down to Joe's and get yours." How much advertising could you get for the equivalent $400-$600 for such an action? I don't think it would be much. The TV stations, who will have to make the switch next month, might even be willing to announce it as a PSA.

At some point in your life you had to purchase a television so you could receive the signals off the air. Well that time to purchase to receive signals has come yet again.

If we keep providing these handouts making the converters free, people without a television at all will begin to argue that the government should provide them with a way to watch tv, too.

* Before you say it's a big deal for "some people," find me one. Seriously. There's nobody with a TV in the U.S. who can't afford to buy a converter box without government help. They may not be able to do so immediately, but they are capable of doing so.

If you didn't get your coupon while they were available, shame on you.

Let's roll.

Why would you need an HDTV?

It's been long enough and we as a country need to make progress. We're already behind the times when it comes to broadband availability.

We shouldn't be letting stragglers set the pace for everyone else.

It seems odd that we would run out of coupons then, because I think I've only met two people (well, households) in the past ten years that didn't purchase cable or satellite.

I'm also using netflix over my xbox and through the mail, and watching more of my programming over the net from the broadcasters sites.

$600 to buy a HDTV or eat...hmm... tough decision.

Perhaps you'd care to enlighten us with your take on what aspects of the NTSC standard developed in 1941 you find most appealing from an engineering standpoint?

The amount of emails, post mailings, radio commercials, tv commercials, newspaper ads, has been overwhelming, if this hasn't gotten the point across than nothing will.

This is just a PR thing from the consumers union so that people hear about them and look them up.

It was September, not a year ago, and the calls were equal to about 1% of TV households in that market. Scale that up to the US, and you're looking at 1MM bewildered homes.

People are forgetting that about a year ago, a "beta" test on the digital conversion was conducted in Wilmington, NC. On the day of the switch there were several people who did not know why they lost their television signal, but it seems that those issues were quickly resolved. Fast forward 1 year with a massive media campaign with every broadcast station running Public service announcements, the FTC taking full page advertisements in newspapers, and purchasing billboards along major roadways reminding people about the upcoming change we have to assume that people are more informed about the change than they were a year ago. Additionally, several jurisdictions have run tests by turning off their analog signals which hopefully has increased awareness.

The broadcasters make plenty of money off the spectrum they lease from the citizens. They should be happy to pony up for a free converter box for every one of us who wants one. If they don't want to do that, they should hand back the spectrum.

I'm not a luddite and neither are my friends, but few of us have a lot of coin to spend on a "good HD setup." I've had cars that cost less than some people's HDTVs.

• It's already been delayed.
• Don't know anybody who's still using Rabbit Ears.
• Tired of the "DTV IS COMING!!" scroll.

At soem point you have to cut the cord for heavens sake. Technology changes, we all used to have analog cell phones and we made the change. Heaven forbid if so nitwit goes without TV for a few days. It's not like the converter box will cost these people a right arm.

Why should we pay for these people to buy a box anyway, always take the phrase "I am from the government and I am here to help as a sign that what is about to happen will be a catastrophe.

If one has not seen the ads on tv or heard them on the radio about the switch then they should not be worried about it because they don't watch enough tv. I see them everyday and I don't watch much tv. (Cuddy from House, M.D. talking about it on a psa comes to mind.)

If one has not found out about it now through all of the money spent on advertising this, then the only way they will find out it is by actually turning off their signals.

Sorry, this change should have taken place years ago.

HOWEVER, when the electricity goes out it is sure nice to have the old analog broadcast and a battery operated TV set.

#1. I Used to be outraged about the giveaway, but quite simply the Government is seizing airwaves and auctioning them to the highest bidder. It could be argued that not providing compensation would be a violation of the 5th amendment. I am not sure this is just TV execs, sure they come out with a newer service and the ability to have 4 sub channels, but it is costing them a fortune. I have been getting my HD signal with rabbit ears for some time, and the reception and picture quality is as good as it gets.

#2. I had to give an in law the $20 to use her two coupons, because she didn't have it and wouldn't budget for it. I could have given it to her for groceries, but it would have been spent on bottled water, Starbucks, or whatever and she would have left $80 worth of coupons on the table. Nonetheless she does get by on an income nearly 1/10th of mine, and I certainly don't run a surplus. (I have not requested coupons, my TiVo series 3 does a great job).

#3, we aren't talking 80's. HD TV's a few years ago typically only had analog tuners and required an external box. The coupons are not good to convert these though (won't output HD).

#4. Lets seize a public asset and auction it to fund education. That sounds great!! The school district where my children will attend is spending $7500/child and doing a fantastic job. I think more money would add bureaucracy and make it worse.

I think the DTV transition is a good thing. Right now every TV station with a digital signal is using 2 sets of frequencies with a large buffer required around the analog one. New stations are not elligable to have two frequencies and must pick analog or digital until the cutover (and have chosen analog in the only specific case I have).

This transition was supposed to happen at the end of 2006. It was pushed back 2 years. It's been long enough.

I agree. People have the right to practice a religion, but the government doesn't have to buy you a car to get to church/temple/etc. Same with petitioning the government. This is like saying that postage should be free if you're writing a letter to a member of Congress or other elected official.

Well, two points:

- I wouldn't call a 27 inch TV "small," and at $600 and up they cost way more than I'd want to spend on a TV.

- Based on what I see at Best Buy, watching fast sports action on HDTV is great if you like seeing MPEG blockies. By the time you're far enough away that the compression artifacts aren't visible, you might as well be watching SDTV.

I find it VERY hard to believe that even 25% of the people who requested a coupon thus far will actually use it... I think the coupons are "gone" because people didn't know what they are for and just thought that it applied to cable tv boxes. Most of them won't be redeemed.

Plus if you absolutely HAVE to have a new tuner for digital TV broadcasts then pay for it yourself. TV is not a right. Saying the government should subsidize making new technology work on old equipment is ridiculous... hell, if that is the case, I want the gov't buy me one of those USB record player recorder gizmos!

I think the switch should be delayed for a different reason: weather.
Since people sometimes need to adjust their external antenna, it's sometimes dangerous to do that in winter.

What if I just don't have a tv? Should the government give me a coupon to buy one? When they started broadcasting HD radio, did the government give out coupons so that everyone could buy an HD radio receiver? People have to be allowed access to the broadcasts, but the government does not have to pay for the tools people need to access those broadcasts.

bowing to the TV execs? huh? the tv stations find this a major pain - they've had to invest in new gear, it's disrupting their customers, etc. the reason for the transition is the huge $ the feds raised by selling off this spectrum.

TV is not essential to a person's everyday life. If you haven't heard of the DTV switch by now, you've been living under a rock. The program was there to help those who would have a hard time affording the converter. Not give every person a free converter.

Should've acted early if you wanted to keep watching your "stories".

The people who find the thought of living without tv horrifying will scrounge up the money to buy a converter. Do you need a converter if you use cable or satellite? Because if you do, I'm sure those people could just shut the cable or satellite off for a month or two and have plenty of money to spend on buying converters.

Just saying, if people stop watching TV the only ones hurt are the broadcasting companies.

@Berz:

I wouldn't be suprised. I've had to tell tons of people who don't need the things not to buy them. A cousin of mine just bought a new TV for Christmas and was ticked that now he had to go buy one of "Those damn boxes". I explained that with a TV as new as his the convertor should already be built in.

I've also had to explain to people I know who have cable that they DO NOT have to buy a convertor. The CU should know that no matter how hard you try to educate people, some folks just refuse to be educated and must learn from experience. Just throw the switch and let what happens happen.

Television is NOT essential to life.

@David Brodbeck: People might not be clamoring for a better digital picture. But somebody somewhere is clamoring for whatever technology is coming next that will depend on the holes freed up in the broadcast spectrum.

If the public isn't prepared, then more time is needed. It's already been pushed back 8 years, what's another few months, or a year even? If you've switched already or have a DTV, this really isn't a concern to you.

@laserjobs: People should be looking for any excuse to get off TV not stay on it.

Wrong! The elderly will either be watching TV or out driving on the streets. Which would you rather see happen?

Though if they're still using rabbit ears on a 1985 Mangnetbox, then maybe they couldn't scrape together the money.

Then again, they ain't paying much tax either.

Hey, yeah! Consumers Union: Why are you asking the federal government to expand their program and use more time and money on this thing when we, the TV watching people that can afford cable (et al.), are footing most of the bill through our greater proportion of tax payments?

(I don't think that my premise is off-base in that the average income of cable/sat customers is higher than that of the rural bumpkins still fidgeting with tin foil and coat hangers. Sure there must be some people whom don't have cable, have high incomes, but don't watch much TV. But in that case, F 'em).

#2. around here converters run $50-$100, on a limited budget this CAN be "prohibitively expensive", specially if you have more than 1 TV.

#3. I have 3 TVs, all bought within the last 5 years (2 within the last 3 years), all are analog.

#4. So would $700B.

@JessMeNU:

Uh...

Try more than 10 years ago!

[www.fcc.gov]

A hurry? They anounced this like over a year ago.

I may be confusing my post topics, and maybe this isn't very compassionate of me, but I'm sick of seeing the DTV ads. So please, hurry up. Plus, I'm leaning very much toward downgrading my cable package and I know the person I get on the phone will try to tell me "But what about the DTV transition?" To which I would say "I'm with Cox. I'm supposed to be fine."

Unfortunately, whether used or unused, if they expire, that's all you get. Even if you didn't take your government granted $80. Now I'm looking at getting four or five boxes on my own.

Just do it and get it over with... people had plenty of time to get the coupon/get cable/get a new TV. The coupon is only $40 anyway. If TV is that near and dear to your heart, use some various money saving tips and just buy the converter without it.

If people couldn't find the time to get things in order and prepare for the switch between 2006 and now while every newspaper and TV channel reported on it daily, why should it be delayed? It has to happen sometime and no matter when it happens, you'll have people who aren't prepared.

The one thing I like about analog, your viewing pleasure degrades gradually as the signal degrades. Even a weak signal is often valuable with such things as the Emergency Broadcast System. With highly compressed digital, often you either get it - or you don't.

#1. It's not a citizen's right to watch tv. I don't see anything in the constitution about it.
#2. It's not like it is prohibitively expensive to get the coverter, even if they ran out of coupons.
#3. If your tv is so old that you need the converter, it is time to upgrade anyhow. 1980s was a long time ago.
#4. 1.5 B would go a pretty long ways to funding education, or providing research money for cancer, or anything else actually useful.

ugh...if MY mom already got her convertor connected and everything, anyone can, it's not hard.

Like a bandaid, sometimes it's best to just do it quickly and have a brief moment of pain, rather than pulling slowly and dragging it out.

So few people watch OTA broadcasts anyway...

You can plan everything to the last detail, but eventually you have to make the cut over and deal with the issues that come up.

Another delay will just make people think they can wait even longer because the next deadline will just be delayed. I come across this in projects all time.

People should be looking for any excuse to get off TV not stay on it.