[Peter Suderman]
There's a fair bit of confusion out there about the upcoming transition from analog to digital* broadcast TV. So it's too bad that today's Post story on how some TV viewers might be affected by the transition doesn't do much to clarify the situation. For instance, here's Joel Kelsey of the Consumer's Union worrying over how low-income elderly folks will handle the transition:
"The elderly population is different in that they're less tech-savvy," Kelsey said. "Will they be able to move big TV sets, and will they know how to hook up the converter boxes?"
The last line in the piece quotes an elderly man living in Arlington:
"I may not even be alive by the time this thing happens!" Navarin said jokingly. "I hate to spend $800 on a new TV when these are perfectly good. I just don't think it's fair."
Both of these quotes seem meant to suggest that some will need to buy expensive new TVs as a result of the switch. But that's simply not the case. Most TV antennas now in use will be able to pick up the digital signals and display them with the help of a fairly inexpensive digital-to-analog signal converter box. What's more, those boxes, which typically only run about $60 to begin with (you can find them for $50 or so if you do some bargain hunting), are being subsidized via a $1.5 billion federal program that entitles everyone to $40 off up to two converters—putting the cost at about $20, not $800, and meaning that neither the elderly nor anyone else will have to buy bulky new sets.
Kelsey's concern that some TV viewers might not know how to hook up converter boxes is slightly more legitimate, but still I doubt there's much to worry about. Anyone who can figure out how to plug an antenna into a TV and adjust it so that picture comes in reasonably well can probably figure out how to connect the antenna to a box which then connects to the TV.
Here's another quote from the story, this one from Margaret Pully, who runs a community for low-income seniors in D.C.:
"TV is their lifeline to the world. Apparently it's not a free thing anymore," she said. "This is certainly an expense we weren't expecting."
Except TV, even over-the-air TV, has never been "free." You've always had to buy the equipment—the TV and antenna—if you wanted to pick up over-the-air broadcasts. A $10 or $20 one-time upgrade, it seems to me, is not unreasonable, even for someone on a tight budget. (Just as a reference point, that's about half what it costs for a 7-day rail pass on Metro.)
Now, I tend to think that there's no reason to subsidize access to broadcast TV in the first place. But setting that aside, maybe it would be fair to complain about the switch -- except that there's already a billion-dollar plus federal subsidy already in place (and one that's hugely wasteful in who it subsidizes at that). And I might be more sympathetic to worries about confusion amongst the elderly—the story reports that 73 percent of older consumers aren't aware of the subsidy—if the transition weren't still almost a year away, and broadcasters and cable companies hadn't committed roughly $1.2 billion to explaining the transition to customers, and the FCC hadn't already set aside $2.5 million to start their education efforts and requested $20 million more.
It's not like there's not a substantial amount of money, taxpayer and private, being spent to make sure that a relatively small number of people keep receiving a few channels on their aging TV sets. It's irritating, but probably politically necessary, that much of this money had to be spent at all, but the benefits from the spectrum it releases are almost certainly worth it. But as it stands, I'm not really sure what else anyone thinks ought to be done.
*Fixed to say "digital broadcast TV."
"Lifeline to the world"? I like TV, but that's a little much, no?
(...and yes, I understand the public safety implications of TV)
Jordan's furniture has been running deeply misleading ads telling people that their analog TV's, even if they bought them recently, may not work next year, and they've got this fantastic sale right now on HDTV. Makes me itch.
Is it correct that existing aerials will be able to pick up digital signals just fine, so long as the TV set the aerial is connected to has a converter box? That would be a HUGE relief for those of us who never bothered getting cable.
I'm glad that in a time of war and giant deficits we were able to find the funds to subsidise old people so they can continue watching Matlock.
This thing has certainly not been well-explained. I know of people who went out and bought a new tv because "my old one won't work any more after February."
These are people who have cable or satellite television.
I know other people who are irritated that they're being "forced" to pay even $20 for the converter box.
Me? I'm irritated that my tax dollars are going to fund such a thing. Yes, yes, I know the public safety implications but it is a strange era we live in when the "poor" have technology - and demand access to said technology - that only the very wealthy had 40 years ago.
I suppose I should be relieved that it's only converter boxes people want; I could see a scenario where tax monies would be diverted to buy wide-screen tvs for those who can't afford them otherwise, so they don't "miss out on the full tv experience."
(And no, I'm not a tv hater. I watch tv, subscribe to second-tier cable even. But it's not a necessity, and if I found myself in straitened circumstances the cable would be the first thing I did to economize...)
Yes. If you get TV through a set rabbit ears right now, probably the only thing you'll need to do is get a coupon and spend ~$20 on a converter. It's possible, though exceedingly unlikely, that you may have a really, really, really old set of rabbit ears, like the ones my parents used in 1985. In that case, you might have to buy a new antenna too. You can get a pretty nifty one for about $20-30 from Best Buy.
As Megan has often explained, most old people are a waste of space who are being kept alive unnaturally by robbing individualists like you and me to pay for their continued existence. To force us to subsidize their entertainment is to add insult to injury.
I'm glad you could join us in crusade against the undeserving elderly.
Joe, do you actually read this blog? Or have you constructed a really tall and thin strawman in your room for you to hurl invective at?
You mean straw woman?
Yes. No.
Though one big downside to the coverter box is that you'll have to change your channels on the converter box, not on the TV. Which sucks if you're using a VCR or analog-tuner-only DVR.
"the upcoming transition from analog to broadcast TV. "
I don't really want to comment for fear of appearing catty.
In any case, the principle is surely that this economic land was being used for the benefit of this section of the public, and that that benefit is suddenly being subjected to a $20 charge?
If you do your research into HD TV you will find that while the converter box WILL let your OLD TV down convert the signal, the NEW signal is HIGHLY directional, and easily blocked.
If you had POOR reception before, you MAY have NO reception after. Rabbit ears are unlikely to be even minimally acceptable....
it is a strange era we live in when the "poor" have technology - and demand access to said technology - that only the very wealthy had 40 years ago.
This boggles the mind. Do you really think "only the very wealthy" had television sets in 1968?
Me? I'm irritated that my tax dollars are going to fund such a thing.
Your tax dollars aren't. The vouchers will cost perhaps $1.5 billion. The spectrum that is being freed up by this conversion was jut auctioned off for $19.6 billion. It's only fair that the government should compensate those hurt by the change.
Would it be cheaper to convert from Shite to Sunni?
Yes, Joe Freeman is right. I've written to AARP asking them to start backing a new government program, TVcare. All those over 65 are entitled to free visits from converter box installers.
This program will expand, naturally, to cover
vcr and/or tivo installers, 24 assistance to program so they can watch Lawrence Welk re-runs,
and generally help treat all senior citizens as if they have no friends, grandchildren or helpful neighbors.
Geez, I can't believe the snide tone of many of the comments on this post, including those by creech, ricki, and matt foley. A couple of people have made passing references to the "public safety implications," but it doesn't seem as though everyone understands what this means.
Next time there is another Katrina--or an earthquake, or a terrorist attack--how exactly do you expect old folks, poor people, and others who rely on analog TV to find out where to go, what to do, etc.? Are you going to phone them up individually? And when there's a flu epidemic, how will you tell people where to go to get their shots?
In situations like that, everyone turns to TV.
That's why making it relatively easy for everyone to get at least basic TV service is a matter of public safety. Sorry it offends the more extreme libertarians in the crowd. Maybe we can shut off the old folks' water, too (it's probably costing you a couple of books on your annual tax bill--what an outrage!).
Mr. Weber:
I assure you that's exactly what I meant above. That being said, I think there's a much older technology that would serve the same purpose in the event of said disaster scenario: radio.
Geez, I can't believe the snide tone of many of the comments on this post, including those by creech, ricki, and matt foley. A couple of people have made passing references to the "public safety implications," but it doesn't seem as though everyone understands what this means.
Next time there is another Katrina--or an earthquake, or a terrorist attack--how exactly do you expect old folks, poor people, and others who rely on analog TV to find out where to go, what to do, etc.? Are you going to phone them up individually? And when there's a flu epidemic, how will you tell people where to go to get their shots?
In situations like that, everyone turns to TV.
That's why making it relatively easy for everyone to get at least basic TV service is a matter of public safety. Sorry it offends the more extreme libertarians in the crowd. Maybe we can shut off the old folks' water, too (it's probably costing you a couple of books on your annual tax bill--what an outrage!).
Radio?
Of course, you can use radio for emergency communications. You can use newspapers and loudspeakers mounted on trucks, for that matter. But every mode of communication has its drawbacks, and in an emergency you would certainly want to use the mode most people feel most comfortable with and the one they use most often.
Personally when I need to get information I turn to TV. During a snow storm here in the Northeast, for example, I use TV because it shows maps of road closings, has a scroll listing school closings, shows important phone numbers and other info visually so they're easy to capture and write down, etc. etc.
In such circumstances when I am forced to rely on the radio what usually seems to happen is that my attention wander for two seconds just when the EXACT piece of info I need happens to me mentioned--and there is nothing I can do about it except wait twenty minutes for the same item to be mentioned again. TV is just a lot more efficient--although nowadays the Internet is better still.
Let this transition to DTV be a lesson to everyone -- stay tech-savvy. One day, Lord willing, you're going to be old and feeble, and unless you've been keeping up, you'll be totally lost on how to operate the new-fangled nanotech surround enmeshed virtual reality entertainment experience they used to call television. You just hit that there red button and the computer did everything. Well, the government just did away with the red button. Now what?
Walk a mile, folks. Walk a mile.
How about the FCC lets go of the spectrum entirely, Congress repeals all laws having anything to do with spectrum, and vows not to pass any more? Interference is not a problem with modern technology which can parse out the signals. The spectrum is woefully underutilized as it is - there's no reason for the FCC to be isolating parts of it and handing them to the highest bidder when those parts can easily be shared by all who can muster up the technological skills to put something out and have another device receive it.
Karl:
I actually agree with you on your final point. In terms of potential information delivery and density, Web>TV>radio. However, I'd say that the opposite ranking works for penetration among the poor. I also agree about the annoyance of capturing that same piece of information -- although when I have the TV on, it seems to be up the second I turn my back.
During the San Diego fires last year, the local TV folks were pretty much useless the first day. While they had a difficult job, granted, their reliance on pictures and emotion(house on fire, tree on fire, OMG!!! treehouse on fire) swamped whatever information they could provide.
The local NPR station did the best job (IMHO) in delivering good information on a regular basis; they even managed to generate an ongoing Google Map at the same time.
It may or may not be interesting to point out that there are radios that are battery powered that are still useful during, say, a power outage while televisions that use batteries are much harder to come by.
I fully expect Comcast to try to use the over-the-air transition to digital TV as an excuse to force all their subscribers to switch to their (higher-priced) digital plan. In my town, they already tried to start the process by moving the community access channels to the digital package (supposedly because of 'digital transition' coming next year).
God I hate the cable companies...
James B. and Karl, I take it that you two weren't actually hit by Katrina. I was, though I'm inland a fair ways and had only Category-1-strength winds.
Television suffered from - what do you call it? Oh yeah, a total lack of electricity to run sets in peoples' homes. Gasoline prices? I hear everywhere else in the country debated about whether prices should be allowed to rise or not; around here the question was where you could find a station that had both gasoline in the ground and power to pump it.
Radio is resilient. It is low enough in its power requirements that virtually everyone has a battery-powered receiver (in their car, if nowhere else) and the transmitter can be operated for a fair amount of time on generator power (especially for AM). The public radio stations of Mississippi - a network of transmitters on different frequencies that broadcast the same signal - provided some of the most reliable, accurate, and useful information during the evacuation and recovery. You're right that TV is a great way to hear about some natural disasters, but when electricity is gone, you can forget about it.
How much standby power do those converter boxes use? 1 watt? 6 watts? Wait till the environmental movement gets wind of this government conspiracy to fill households with power-sucking always-on converter boxes.