Breaking News: House refuses to fast track DTV Delay Act

Discussion in 'Local Reception' started by Tom Robertson, Jan 28, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jan 28, 2009 #41 of 180
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator

    51,341
    2,376
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    It passed the senate with UNANIMOUS CONSENT ... it was not a unanimous vote. Basically "without objection".

    They can slow it down and stop it from being railroaded through by the majority.
     
  2. Jan 28, 2009 #42 of 180
    xIsamuTM

    xIsamuTM Icon

    567
    0
    Jul 8, 2008
    It's like the opening of Hitchhikers only with TV.

    "I'm sorry, but if you can't be bothered to take an interest in local affairs that's your own lookout. "
     
  3. Jan 28, 2009 #43 of 180
    Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    248
    Nov 15, 2005
    The House does not have a party line supermajority necessary to pass this instantly. So now this bill goes thru the regular process and calendar. (Or dies from lack of timeliness.)
     
  4. Jan 28, 2009 #44 of 180
    GravelChan

    GravelChan Legend

    224
    0
    Jan 30, 2005
     
  5. Jan 28, 2009 #45 of 180
    minorthr

    minorthr Legend

    177
    0
    Mar 18, 2003
    Again sucks to be them. They will figure it out when they turn their TVs on and they don't work. They have had plenty of time to simply stumble on to the info. Its not like last Tuesday we just suddenly decided that Feb 17th we are shutting the analog signals off.
     
  6. Jan 28, 2009 #46 of 180
    BaldEagle

    BaldEagle Legend

    134
    0
    Jun 19, 2006
    Not may happen, it will happen. Passed in the Senate, new vote to be taken in the house that only requires a simple majority to pass. The votes were not there the first time around for 2/3rd but will easily pass when only a majority is needed.
     
  7. Jan 28, 2009 #47 of 180
    cb7214

    cb7214 Icon

    798
    0
    Jan 25, 2007
    and if that was the case don't forget about the newspapers radio billboards etc that also had info on the transition
     
  8. Jan 28, 2009 #48 of 180
    Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    248
    Nov 15, 2005
    If it can be scheduled for a vote in time. That is the part that is unclear to me right now.
     
  9. Jan 28, 2009 #49 of 180
    jefbal99

    jefbal99 Hall Of Fame

    2,838
    0
    Sep 7, 2007
    I spoke with a station engineer at WLNS in Lansing, a Young Broadcasting station, they can't move until WJRT in Flint moves as they are using the channel currently.

    I hope that the move is not delayed, not the fault of the overwhelming majority that the minority didn't get their ducks in a row.
     
  10. Jan 28, 2009 #50 of 180
    jpl

    jpl Hall Of Fame

    2,777
    6
    Jul 9, 2006
    Was it by unanimous concent? Everywhere I've read about it the bill passed unanimously - I took that to mean by unanimous vote, but I could be wrong. As for your second point, no that's not true. They can't slow it down. In the House the majority really does rule. They set the agenda on what get's debated and voted on. I don't want to migrate to the political here, because I know that's not allowed on this forum, however, since we're discussing procedural issues with regard to legislation I think it's valid to talk about this. Look at what happened late summer - as Congress was going into summer recess the GOP kept pushing for their position on drilling off-shore. They wanted to lift the Congressional ban on it. The democrats absoultely refused to even hold a debate on the bill. As a result, no debate happened. The bill was never introduced. It was never discussed (at least not while Congress was in session), and it certainly never came up for a vote. The GOP couldn't even prevent the House from being called to recess, although they tried. The rules simply didn't allow for it - the majority wanted to adjourn, so they did.

    About the best that the minority can do is to do just what they did here - prevent votes on bills that require suspension of normal rules of debate. The only exception to this happens IF the majority GIVES the minority specific authority to act. For example, the majority could give the minority, through the adoption of the rules, the ability to bring up points of order... or offer up bills outside of the approval of the majority. But (again, I'm NOT trying to get political on this - just explaining my understanding of the procedures) one of the first things that Speaker Pelosi did was to take away any such authorization, when she took power in January of 2007. Prior to that the minority DID have some authority granted to it by the majority. When the majority flipped, those authorizations were taken away.

    BTW, thanks to all the replies on the clarification. That makes alot of sense - the fact that the clock is ticking on this (I lost sight of just how close the scheduled transition was) would prevent a normal bill from going through. The Wash Post article then is wrong - they didn't vote down the bill. THAT'S where my confusion came from.
     
  11. Jan 28, 2009 #51 of 180
    Henry

    Henry Retired Member

    3,588
    64
    Nov 15, 2007
    Pine, CO
    I'll take that to mean you agree that it's hard to believe that all of these affected people are not in the know.
     
  12. Jan 28, 2009 #52 of 180
    tkrandall

    tkrandall Hall Of Fame

    1,815
    3
    Oct 3, 2003
    Has anyone seed the actual language in the senate bill as it pertains to which gets priority (existing analog broadcast or new permanent-RF-home digital broadcast) as of Feb 18? Hopefully, the new bill/law allows digital to trump any conflicting analog signal, and thereby force an analog shutdown in those cases.
     
  13. Jan 28, 2009 #53 of 180
    Dave

    Dave Icon

    864
    0
    Jan 28, 2003
    After some more investigation I have foumd that the bill is definately dead.
    This was a special bill that:) needed a 2/3 majority to pass. It the bill, is now completly dead. It will not happen. The changeover is now set in stone unless they try to do a new bill completely. The change over right now is Feb. 17, 2009.
     
  14. Jan 28, 2009 #54 of 180
    Paul Secic

    Paul Secic Hall Of Fame

    6,226
    23
    Dec 16, 2003
    It's the NAB'S and stations fault. They should've aired PSAS on the hour and half hour since 2006.
     
  15. Jan 28, 2009 #55 of 180
    Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    248
    Nov 15, 2005
    The latest Reuters report indicates that the bill could be brought up again next week without a rules suspension. Under those rules a couple things are possible:
    1) simple majority (bill likely passes)
    2) but--the bill can be amended! (again by simple majority).

    If the bill is amended, it would have to go back to the Senate or a joint committee to resolve the differences.

    So the bill is not dead yet.

    Cheers,
    Tom
     
  16. Jan 28, 2009 #56 of 180
    Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    248
    Nov 15, 2005
    Links?

    The bill would not normally be dead. It can be re-introduced in two ways: 1) again under a suspension of the rules (and would still need 2/3rds majority) or 2) normal bill introduction, committee, debate, possible amending, etc. (only requires simple majority votes.)
     
  17. Jan 28, 2009 #57 of 180
    Stuart Sweet

    Stuart Sweet The Shadow Knows!

    37,060
    288
    Jun 18, 2006
    Thanks, Tom, for that not terribly happy news.
     
  18. Jan 28, 2009 #58 of 180
    Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    248
    Nov 15, 2005
    As far as the transition itself, the Senate Bill only extends the deadlines without modifying priority and without modifying the ability to transition early (under the existing rules to early transition.)

    Cheers,
    Tom
     
  19. Jan 28, 2009 #59 of 180
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator

    51,341
    2,376
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Unanimous consent has been noted in our threads (and you can confirm by checking Thomas (congress.gov)).

    They already HAVE slowed it down by objecting to the "unanimous consent" in the house last night (where the speaker pro tem "heard" a 2/3rds majority before the roll call vote was requested) and by that vote not passing this morning. It is obvious that they can slow it down when they HAVE!
     
  20. Jan 28, 2009 #60 of 180
    Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    248
    Nov 15, 2005
    That is very interesting. Last night, I listened to the voice vote multiple times and thought I heard it was "not" 2/3rds in affirmative, tho the official record shows it otherwise.

    Oh well, it ended up being "Yeas and Nays" vote today regardless.

    Cheers,
    Tom
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements