[IP] Re: Congress Should Delay the Digital TV Transition

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren@vortex.com>
Date: January 10, 2009 11:15:41 AM EST
To: David Farber <dave@farber.net>
Subject: Re: [IP] WORTH READING  Congress Should Delay the Digital TV  
Transition


Dave,

By the way, though I didn't mention this in my essay a couple of days
ago urging DTV transition delay, it appears that there may be some DTV
converter price gouging going on now so close to the current analog
cutoff date.  At local stores here in L.A., I've seen that the exact
same converters that were available for *free* a couple of months ago
(that is, $40, minus the $40 coupon) are now priced $20 higher!  Same
box, same store.  Only difference -- the deadline looms.

--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren@vortex.com or lauren@pfir.org
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
http://www.pfir.org/lauren
Co-Founder, PFIR
  - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Co-Founder, NNSquad
  - Network Neutrality Squad - http://www.nnsquad.org
Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com

  - - -

On 01/10 04:55, David Farber wrote:
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: "Bruce Kushnick" <bruce@newnetworks.com>
> Date: January 9, 2009 11:05:44 PM EST
> To: <dave@farber.net>
> Subject: RE: [IP] Congress Should Delay the Digital TV Transition
>
>
>
>
> <The available DTV converters are just plain confusing to many  
> viewers,
> <especially folks who have been watching the same old TVs with "rabbit
> ear"
> <antennas for ages.  Even if they get everything hooked up right, many
> <people will find that their reception under the digital regime is
> <unacceptable due to coverage variations and differing antenna
> requirements.
>
>
>
> We wrote an article about why there should be a delay... The real  
> secret
> --
> the antenna configurations were not designed for digital signals and  
> in
> whole strips of America's rural fringe areas are going to lose signals
> even
> with new antennas.
>
> We wrote an article
> http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=0
> 0383
>
> Tom Allibone of Teletruth actually went to customers' homes in  
> Hunterdon
> county, NJ to do real world testing --- The result was -- 100% lost  
> New
> York
> channels, even though they are in the NY City MSA
>
> We did a separate report on the survey.
> http://www.newnetworks.com/dtvreport.htm
>
>
> So customers go out, buy the box, find it doesn't work, then goes back
> to
> the store who has no idea about an antenna -- and even those who  
> bought
> new
> antennas --- or new TVs are not guaranteed they will work.
>
> According to the original documents, the NTIA claimed it would work  
> with
> existing technology -- the rabbit ears... with no real world testing.
>
> And, then there's the question of, well, collusion. Every media outlet
> has
> been essentially using the materials supplied by the NTIA, FCC, and  
> NAB
> --
> and virtually no programming even mentioned that the person may need a
> new
> antenna until December 2008. And, most programming today does not
> mention
> the antenna issue.
>
> So, in the middle of a winter snowstorm, seniors go on the roofs of
> their
> houses to attempt to adjust an antenna that can't be adjusted --- and
> spend
> hundreds more on antennas that they really don't have the money to  
> spend
> on
> -- then the cable companies comes over and raises their left eyebrow  
> --
> have
> I got a deal for you...
>
> Should we be talking TV-Lifeline?
>
> B.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------




-------------------------------------------