Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo

Breaking News: House refuses to fast track DTV Delay Act


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
179 replies to this topic

#176 OFFLINE   fluffybear

fluffybear

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 7,281 posts
  • LocationPeachtree City, GA.
Joined: Jun 19, 2004

Posted 29 January 2009 - 07:02 PM

What got defeated was the fast track vote so the bill could sail through without going to committee, and House debate. We think we have this one right :D


If I remember my Government class correctly (been 20+ years so I am probably wrong) but if this bill gets through committee and gets back to the house floor in time, all it would take to throw a wrench in the works is someone throwing a rider on to it. The bill would then go back to Senate for a new vote..

Proud DirecTV customer since July, 1994

My Q2 2015 Set-Up


...Ads Help To Support This Site...

#177 OFFLINE   scooper

scooper

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,006 posts
  • LocationYoungsville NC
Joined: Apr 22, 2002

Posted 29 January 2009 - 07:10 PM

If I remember my Government class correctly (been 20+ years so I am probably wrong) but if this bill gets through committee and gets back to the house floor in time, all it would take to throw a wrench in the works is someone throwing a rider on to it. The bill would then go back to Senate for a new vote..


That would be MY understanding of the situation...
And it's been longer than that for me...
You CAN put antennas on your owned and/or controlled property...

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html

#178 OFFLINE   CliffV

CliffV

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 259 posts
Joined: Jan 24, 2006

Posted 29 January 2009 - 07:30 PM

Why would you have to put a new antenna on your roof?

If you rely on OTA television, you already have an antenna. If you don't rely on OTA television, you don't need an antenna.

I suppose there are a handful of people who only have VHF or UHF antennas, and now need to add the other. But most cities in the country have had both VHF and UHF analog transmissions, so anyone who was relying on OTA television for analog, would already have a VHF/UHF antenna.


Last summer I e-mailed my sister to see if she was ready for the transition. I knew she couldn't hook up a converter box, because last year I had to hook up a DVD player for her.

She ran her TV off a set of VHF rabbit ears and her Portland stations would require UHF also. We emailed back and forth a couple of times and it was clear that she was confused. Finally (after a 2 week pause), she e-mailed me that she picked up basic cable for $10 a month. That sounded like a desperation move to me.

I suspect there are a lot of confused people out there.

#179 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 41,909 posts
  • LocationMichiana
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 30 January 2009 - 02:53 AM

New senate bill, new thread ...
http://www.dbstalk.c...ad.php?t=151219

#180 OFFLINE   Tom Robertson

Tom Robertson

    Lifetime Achiever

  • Topic Starter
  • DBSTalk Club
  • 20,768 posts
Joined: Nov 15, 2005

Posted 30 January 2009 - 09:47 AM

An educational note explaining why the first Senate bill is completely dead in the House, why suspension of House Rules was required, and therefore why a new bill was required (or an amendment would be necessary.)

House Rules require "Pay as You Go". The DTV Delay bills intend to expend monies in the converter coupon program, which requires some form of "how we gonna pay for it" in the House. Hence the required suspension of rules. Not just for fast-tracking as I had originally thought.

The new bill makes it clear that the coupon section of the bill will not take affect until subsequent legislature authorizes the expenditures:

(d) Condition of Modifications- The amendments made by this section shall not take effect until the enactment of additional budget authority after the date of enactment of this Act to carry out the analog-to-digital converter box program under section 3005 of the Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005.

Carry on in the other thread,
Tom

Go Packers!

My real treasures: 5 Grandchildren - S, D, M, M, C ; Now 5! Great-Grandtibbers - B, H, J, A, and M (Born 7/31/2011)





Protected By... spam firewall...And...