Fritts to Congress: Don't Rush DTV Switch

[Chris Blount]

Eddie Fritts, president and CEO of the National Association of Broadcasters, wrote House leaders Wednesday about broadcaster concerns with speeding up the digital TV transition, saying lawmakers shouldn't disenfranchise millions of TV viewers by accelerating the timeline for the switch.
At issue is a letter also sent to Capitol Hill from the Computer Systems Policy Project that asked lawmakers to pass legislation aimed at completing the DTV transition as soon as possible. Fritts, in his letter sent to members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said the "corporate financial interests of a handful of technology companies should not trump the needs of American television viewers."

He added, "A premature end to analog television could leave millions of Americans without access to free local TV station signals. The harm to these consumers - a disproportionate number of whom come from poor and minority households - must be considered against the purely parochial interests of high-tech companies hoping to profit from new uses of this spectrum."

Fritts also told lawmakers that broadcasters have invested billions of dollars to complete the DTV transition.

"As these hundreds of local broadcasters are transmitting in both analog and digital signals, they are paying dual operating costs without any additional revenue source," he said. "Clearly, we have every incentive to see the transition ended and the analog spectrum freed for other uses."

http://www.skyreport.com (Used with permission)

[SimpleSimon]

Somebody needs to slap Fritts silly. :mad:

I would've said slap him stupid, but he already is.

[BabaLouie]

Why do you say this? Much as I like digital, Fritts is exactly right about this...

[SimpleSimon]

Why do you say this? Much as I like digital, Fritts is exactly right about this...
No he's not. OTA has been obsolete for decades - even digital.

It's a VERY poor use of am EXTREMELY limited resource.

And who wants a 6' antenna with rotor on a 30' pole?

And damn few people don't have decent access to cable or satellite. We could argue about that all day, but I'm out there where I see who's got it and who doesn't.

When you're poor, it's cheap entertainment and when you're rich, the only reason not to have it is aesthetics - and those people aren't gonna have an OTA antenna, either.

[AllieVi]

... OTA has been obsolete for decades - even digital. ...Analog is not obsolete in my house. It may not give the best picture, but I don't object. I have lots of other things that aren't state-of-the-art but that meet my needs perfectly well. We don't require people to replace their "obsolete" old cars simply because newer ones are improved in almost every way.

The time to make the switch is when the overwhelming number of sets on the market can receive digital signals one way or another. Free converters for all TV's would be a start, but it doesn't help those in areas with poor reception. Digital requires a reliably strong signal to avoid a black screen. Many people who currently are satisfied with a less-than-perfect analog signal will be forced to do without TV or spend money for satellite (which may not carry the local channels they're trying to watch).

[Nick]

...OTA has been obsolete for decades - even digital. It's a VERY poor use of am EXTREMELY limited resource, and who wants a 6' antenna with rotor on a 30' pole?...WHAT!!! OTA OBSOLETE??? ARE YOU NUTS???

That's like saying the reciprocating engine is obsolete, so throw it out. NTSC via FTA is absolutely the easiest, cheapest and best technology for anyone and almost everyone to use. Who wants a 6' antenna w/rotor on a 30' pole? I do, except mine would be a 96" deep-fringe monster mounted over fixed double-helix 8-bay bow-ties bolted back-to-back to a 60' guyed tower painted red, orange and yellow with strobe lights on top and spot lights on the ground to illuminate the tower so it could be seen from seven states at night.

Analog FTA is like Classic Coke - don't mess with it.
Analog FTA is the way God watches TV.
Analog FTA is EMR love; Digital TV is the spawn of Satan
Analog FTA has put millions to sleep; digital keeps people awake and disrupts the spleen.
Analog FTA is in the Bible - don't mess with it;
Analog FTA is the voice of Aunt Bee and Mr. Rogers; digital is a tower of Babel
Analog FTA is good for the soul; digital causes severe indigestion.
Analog FTA permeates one's being, and finally...
Analog FTA and tropospheric skip is the trailer-dweller's friend

Has anyone asked the hard question - what is the REAL reason the government wants the analog spectrum? If it's so obsolete, why is the government pushing this so hard? What does your senator know that he/she isn't telling you?

But then, I am from the old skool. :shrug:

[SimpleSimon]

... We don't require people to replace their "obsolete" old cars simply because newer ones are improved in almost every way. ...Yes, many areas DO require that - when the old cars can no longer pass emissions tests.... Digital requires a reliably strong signal to avoid a black screen. ...True - and that reception is more difficult to get, and multi-path issues will NOT go away. It just reinforces my point that OTA as a whole is obsolete.

Has anyone asked the hard question - what is the REAL reason the government wants the analog spectrum? If it's so obsolete, why is the government pushing this so hard? What does your senator know that he/she isn't telling you?They want to sell it for other uses, such as expanding the available space for Emergency Services - remember the trouble the NYPD & FDNY have? It was brought to the forefront when they analyzed 9/11.

And the SPECTRUM is not obsolete, it's the USAGE of it that is. Going digital helps free up space, but I'm even more radical - my position is that there's basically no need for ANY OTA TV.

Finally, in my case, my congressman knows NOTHING - he thinks HDTV is a Pentagon boondoggle - I've got it on paper, addressed to me, signed by him. He's a frelling idiot.

P.S. You probably mean "OTA" where you typed "FTA" in your post. ;)

[AllieVi]

Yes, many areas DO require that - when the old cars can no longer pass emissions tests.You're making the wrong analogy here. A 1980's car has to meet the emission requirements for the year it was built, not 2005 standards. As long as it can do that, no problem.

[AllieVi]

P.S. You probably mean "OTA" where you typed "FTA" in your post. ;)I think he really did mean FTA. Coincidentally, for those of us who were in our 20's in the 1960's, it can have a very different meaning... :lol:

[Cholly]

You're making the wrong analogy here. A 1980's car has to meet the emission requirements for the year it was built, not 2005 standards. As long as it can do that, no problem.
Except that those cars still contribute a monsterous ammount of pollution to your already brown skies in sunny(?) California. :D
:soapbox: I'm with Simon 100%. I fully recognize that many people rely on OTA analog TB and don't have the resources at this time to purchase digital receivers. But a goodly percentage of those people will spend those resources at bars, fast food joints and on video games and lottery tickets. It's a matter of channeling expenses.
The transition to digital leaves viewers with three choices for TV reception: digital OTA with decent antennas and set top boxes, cable and satellite. I happen to have been around in the late forties, living in Chicago. I bought my parents our first TV for $169. It had a 12 inch round picture tube, and to get reception at all, we needed an outdoor antenna mounted high on the side of our two story house. Today, you can buy a 27 inch TV receiver and an OTA ATSC set top tuner for under $400 (that's a lot less than the cost of my 12 inch TV when you take inflation into account). OTA ATSC boxes cost less than $200 at Wal-Mart today, and I bet the price can be brought down to less than $100 if the industry would move forward. Also, almost anyone can get satellite or cable for less than $50 a month. The cable companies could provide TV downconverted from digital to analog with little problem.

I don't for a minute buy into the argument that the majority of people can't afford the changeover. Most broadcasters have been unwilling to spend the additional dollars needed to upgrade their physical plants. It's only in the larger DMA's that digital broadcasting at full authorized power has been mandated up to now. What is needed NOW is a mandate to go full power with digital signals in ALL DMA's. Allow a gradual phaseout of analog. First in the major cities, then in the smaller DMA's. This would allow a release of the current analog frequencies to public service in the big cities, etc. :rant:

[tampa8]

Fritts is correct. Meaning this in a nice way, some people have to see the real world around them. I am an EMT that serves a mostly lower income area -when I go on house calls I see countless homes with TV's that still use the rabbit ears or an outside antenna for over the air - all with the cheapest 14'' or 19'' tvs. They probably cannot go out and get a converter box for a basically worthless tv, nor afford to get a new one, or at least not a new one for two rooms, etc.. And why should they have to? Obviously I like new technology having Dishnetwork, XM radio, etc.. etc... but I can afford to. How many would like to hear that in another year or so all your analog radio's are obsolete? I realize that most numbers show about 85% are served by digital any way - and/or by cable or dbs - but 15% is still a large enough number to not ignore, especially when most of the 15% is probably low income.

[AllieVi]

Except that those cars still contribute a monsterous ammount of pollution to your already brown skies in sunny(?) California. :D
The pollution issue doesn't really affect me. I live fairly close to the coast and the prevailing winds bring in clean air (not all of us are affected by LA). My pollution and that from Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania is deposited someplace farther east. It's fairly clean by the time it crosses thousands of miles of the Pacific Ocean and I breathe it again.

[Dave]

Can anyone tell me or show me in the FCC rules where it says, you must buy converters, or have satellite or cable in order to get your reception? It states that the airways are free to the general public. We are the general and the airways are free and not supposedly pay induced by congress to make money off of the analog frequencies. Congress started earmarking the monies from the sale of the analog freq's in the 90's. They need to rethink where the money is going and start buying converters for every TV in every household across America. Yes I do have Dish TV, but there are 15 to 45 million TV's that don't have any kind of digital system in there household. You can not say forget you to 15 million Americans over TV.

[Bob Haller]

In comparison with the cost of the Iraq war, over 880 BILLION last time I noticed, this is a drop in the bucket....

[scooper]

Dave - while I could agree with "1 ATSC convertor per household" - I simply don't see the point/need to "1 ATSC convertor per TV" . As cholly said - after that, it's a matter of rearrainging their priorities - save $100- $200 for the convertor rather than go to the bar that month.

[FTA Michael]

I'm really sad that some folks think that absolutely anyone could find an extra $50-100 per TV to keep OTA programming coming. Check the synopses for The Working Poor by David Shipler. (Here, for example: http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=1-0375708219-6) Think of thousands of full-time workers who can't afford health insurance. (http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2004/national-reporting/works/walmart1.html) If you walk a mile with these people, will you really come away thinking that all they need is to reprioritize their entertainment money?

To restate the obvious:

Most people can find money for a converter or two without much problem.

Digital TV is as inevitable as the switch from vinyl to CDs.

At some point, the FCC will probably have to finalize the switch away from analog TV.

But what's the hurry? Why not wait for another couple more years of digital-ready TVs before we make unassisted analog TVs go dark?

[scooper]

That point too has been made in this thread - The original date was Dec 2006 - that date ain't gonna happen for LOTS of reasons, in part due to the FCC not mandating ATSC tuners sooner.

[Paul Secic]

Fritts is correct. Meaning this in a nice way, some people have to see the real world around them. I am an EMT that serves a mostly lower income area -when I go on house calls I see countless homes with TV's that still use the rabbit ears or an outside antenna for over the air - all with the cheapest 14'' or 19'' tvs. They probably cannot go out and get a converter box for a basically worthless tv, nor afford to get a new one, or at least not a new one for two rooms, etc.. And why should they have to? Obviously I like new technology having Dishnetwork, XM radio, etc.. etc... but I can afford to. How many would like to hear that in another year or so all your analog radio's are obsolete? I realize that most numbers show about 85% are served by digital any way - and/or by cable or dbs - but 15% is still a large enough number to not ignore, especially when most of the 15% is probably low income.

Ask somebody in that area if they know what Digital TV or HDTV is. I bet you'd get a blank stare.