People should be looking for any excuse to get off TV not stay on it.

@laserjobs: Agreed

If you MUST have tv to live, then PAY FOR IT!

I'm not in favor of a delay. This has been delayed too much over the years.

You can plan everything to the last detail, but eventually you have to make the cut over and deal with the issues that come up.

Another delay will just make people think they can wait even longer because the next deadline will just be delayed. I come across this in projects all time.

This affects such a small percentage of the market, and has already been pushed back so far... just do it and get it over with.

Like a bandaid, sometimes it's best to just do it quickly and have a brief moment of pain, rather than pulling slowly and dragging it out.

So few people watch OTA broadcasts anyway...

ugh...if MY mom already got her convertor connected and everything, anyone can, it's not hard.

I still don't see why government is subsidizing tv.

#1. It's not a citizen's right to watch tv. I don't see anything in the constitution about it.
#2. It's not like it is prohibitively expensive to get the coverter, even if they ran out of coupons.
#3. If your tv is so old that you need the converter, it is time to upgrade anyhow. 1980s was a long time ago.
#4. 1.5 B would go a pretty long ways to funding education, or providing research money for cancer, or anything else actually useful.

Fast forward 6 months and we'll see the headlines about how many millions of dollars in coupons weren't even used...

@laserjobs: While I agree with you, I still think CU is doing the right thing. After all, why do we feel that we need to be in a big hurry to force everyone to digital?

The one thing I like about analog, your viewing pleasure degrades gradually as the signal degrades. Even a weak signal is often valuable with such things as the Emergency Broadcast System. With highly compressed digital, often you either get it - or you don't.

What a load of BS. Sorry, Consumerist and Consumer Union, but the DTV switch has been force fed down our throats for two years now. I can't watch an entire television program on TV without seeing scrolling text across the bottom or a commercial warning about the upcoming digital switch.

If people couldn't find the time to get things in order and prepare for the switch between 2006 and now while every newspaper and TV channel reported on it daily, why should it be delayed? It has to happen sometime and no matter when it happens, you'll have people who aren't prepared.

It's hard to believe the sky will start falling when this transfers over. If people were too dumb to get a coupon before Feb then do you really think they will if you extend it?

Just do it and get it over with... people had plenty of time to get the coupon/get cable/get a new TV. The coupon is only $40 anyway. If TV is that near and dear to your heart, use some various money saving tips and just buy the converter without it.

@milrtime83: I know for a fact mine weren't. I ordered them bright and early when the website first went online and received them about six weeks later. They were good for three months... but in that three months, my father got sicker, slipped into a coma, and passed away. The first thing on my mind wasn't getting a converter box, so by the time I thought of it the coupons had expired without ever being used.

Unfortunately, whether used or unused, if they expire, that's all you get. Even if you didn't take your government granted $80. Now I'm looking at getting four or five boxes on my own.

At some point, you have to close the iron curtain, even if you have questions about our digital prescription.

I may be confusing my post topics, and maybe this isn't very compassionate of me, but I'm sick of seeing the DTV ads. So please, hurry up. Plus, I'm leaning very much toward downgrading my cable package and I know the person I get on the phone will try to tell me "But what about the DTV transition?" To which I would say "I'm with Cox. I'm supposed to be fine."

@Saboth: #1 False. The citizens own the airwaves and the bandwidth. The FCC (a public, government organization) licenses companies to use public bandwidth on behalf of the public to media companies to broadcast their media for the public good, and therefore free TV (and radio) is a "right."
#2 False. Tell that to Granny and Grandpa who are on a fixed income. $100 is prohibitively expensive to them.
#3 False. Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. Why should I get rid of something useful, if I can find a way to make it work?
#4 Silly, dumb, and False. The American Public school system is the most over-funded under performing system in the world (but let's not bring up controversial topics, shall we?), Private investors already spend billions on cancer research, so with the deficit funding party we've got going on, what's another $1.5B?

I wonder how many people hogged up on the coupons,thinking they could make xtra money somehow by overcharging for them or putting them on ebay or something? Or maybe even getting 1 or 2 just in case they might feel a need to have them,rather they need them for real. Am I confusing you yet? Is any of these ideas possible?

@Saboth: Dang, you're a conservative. Welcome.

I recently moved and requested one for my house,(had cable at my apt before). Got an error about 'the household has already requested one', previous owners im guessing, 'click here to appeal'. You enter an email address and wait. Well I've been waiting a month and nothing. I get the feeling I'm SOL.

@SacraBos:

A hurry? They anounced this like over a year ago.

IMHO the whole switch to digital is misguided. No one except videophiles who spend $$$$ on bigscreen TVs really cares about the better picture. People weren't exactly clamoring for this. Consumers and the broadcast industry are being forced to spend millions on this unnecessary switch. The only people really benefiting are electronics manufacturers.

@JessMeNU:

Uh...

Try more than 10 years ago!

[www.fcc.gov]

@Saboth:
#1. Nobody said anything about it being in the constitution. The fact is the transition is due to the goverment bowing to the TV execs.

#2. around here converters run $50-$100, on a limited budget this CAN be "prohibitively expensive", specially if you have more than 1 TV.

#3. I have 3 TVs, all bought within the last 5 years (2 within the last 3 years), all are analog.

#4. So would $700B.

@Saboth: Is the government spending more on this program than they get back by auctioning off the spectrum it frees up? If not, it's not really a subsidy, IMHO. (I don't know the answer to that question, though.)

People had 2 years to save up the 50 or 100 bucks needed for a converter box. It's time, with or without coupons.

Though if they're still using rabbit ears on a 1985 Mangnetbox, then maybe they couldn't scrape together the money.

Then again, they ain't paying much tax either.

Hey, yeah! Consumers Union: Why are you asking the federal government to expand their program and use more time and money on this thing when we, the TV watching people that can afford cable (et al.), are footing most of the bill through our greater proportion of tax payments?

(I don't think that my premise is off-base in that the average income of cable/sat customers is higher than that of the rural bumpkins still fidgeting with tin foil and coat hangers. Sure there must be some people whom don't have cable, have high incomes, but don't watch much TV. But in that case, F 'em).

@laserjobs: People should be looking for any excuse to get off TV not stay on it.

Wrong! The elderly will either be watching TV or out driving on the streets. Which would you rather see happen?

The big thing everyone seems to be forgetting is that the airwaves are public property. The FCC divvys up the spectrum to be used for the public good, so the public should have sufficient time to prepare for this transition because it will change the way they are able to use their (collective) property. TV is a communications medium, and the "right" to use it (OTA broadcast, to be clear) has roots in the first amendment. It's not about being a couch potato, it's about providing access to news that some might not otherwise have.

If the public isn't prepared, then more time is needed. It's already been pushed back 8 years, what's another few months, or a year even? If you've switched already or have a DTV, this really isn't a concern to you.

@David Brodbeck: People might not be clamoring for a better digital picture. But somebody somewhere is clamoring for whatever technology is coming next that will depend on the holes freed up in the broadcast spectrum.

Why delay it? Since everything's already in place....go for it.

Television is NOT essential to life.

@Berz:

I wouldn't be suprised. I've had to tell tons of people who don't need the things not to buy them. A cousin of mine just bought a new TV for Christmas and was ticked that now he had to go buy one of "Those damn boxes". I explained that with a TV as new as his the convertor should already be built in.

I've also had to explain to people I know who have cable that they DO NOT have to buy a convertor. The CU should know that no matter how hard you try to educate people, some folks just refuse to be educated and must learn from experience. Just throw the switch and let what happens happen.

You'd think for all the revenue generated for the broadcasting companies by using OUR airwaves, they'd be the ones to cough up the bucks to purchase converter boxes so the sheeple can be sure to keep getting the recommended daily allowances of propaganda and commercials.

Just saying, if people stop watching TV the only ones hurt are the broadcasting companies.

@lalaland13: DEAR GOD PLEASE STOP THE COMMERCIALS. If one more newscaster tells me how many days I have left until the switch I am going to throw a shoe through my tv.

@Berz: My dad forgot to use his coupons before the expired so I ordered some for him using my home address. Maybe you have nice relatives who will lie to the government for you too?

@David Brodbeck:
Spoken like someone who has never watched an HD football game or HD TV show. Even on a small 27 inch HD lcd the clarity and picture are amazing compared to even good off-air signals.

Sorry Disagree with the Consumer Union on this one.

@bnet41: Yup, it's Murphy's Law.

@Xerloq: Your argument can be used in the opposite direction also. It's been 8 years, so there's been plenty of time to switch.

OH DEAR GOD!!! WHAT WILL THE PEOPLE DO WITHOUT TEEEEVEEEE!!!!!

The people who find the thought of living without tv horrifying will scrounge up the money to buy a converter. Do you need a converter if you use cable or satellite? Because if you do, I'm sure those people could just shut the cable or satellite off for a month or two and have plenty of money to spend on buying converters.

@Xerloq: No, but it is a concern to the companies that have already purchased the bandwidth freed in the DTV transition. Those companies cannot bring products to market that will use said bandwidth until after the transition is complete.

@VaMPKiSS1: Like I said below, see if a friend or relative who doesn't need coupons will order some for you...although that doesn't work now if they stopped giving them out :(

@David Brodbeck: The DTV transition isn't about improving picture. It's about reclaiming bandwidth. Standard definition analog video uses much more bandwidth than high definition digital video. By reclaiming the bandwidth used by analog broadcasters, we pave the way for new technology that will better serve the public.

Disagree with this, Consumers Union. Do not delay.

TV is not essential to a person's everyday life. If you haven't heard of the DTV switch by now, you've been living under a rock. The program was there to help those who would have a hard time affording the converter. Not give every person a free converter.

Should've acted early if you wanted to keep watching your "stories".

@antisane:

bowing to the TV execs? huh? the tv stations find this a major pain - they've had to invest in new gear, it's disrupting their customers, etc. the reason for the transition is the huge $ the feds raised by selling off this spectrum.

@Bladefist: It's not necessarily that he's conservative. I'm pretty liberal and I think the coupon program is a waste of money.

What if I just don't have a tv? Should the government give me a coupon to buy one? When they started broadcasting HD radio, did the government give out coupons so that everyone could buy an HD radio receiver? People have to be allowed access to the broadcasts, but the government does not have to pay for the tools people need to access those broadcasts.

Let's face it. The only people who will get left out are old people, and they can break out the old transistor radios to get all their "essential news, information and emergency broadcasts".

They should authorize people to claim the 40 dollars as a rebate. That way they can "apply" the coupon after they buy the converter and not be forced to wait for coupons to become available.

Im not one to usually judge people but they announced this transistion about 2 years ago and for the last 6 months you cant watch a TV show at night without seeing a crawl across the screen about the DTV switch as well as commercials played on every channel. If people still have not made arrangements to keep watching TV then they never will until it goes black. Just leave it the way it is.

Dang, you've made a good point! An increase in senior driving is frightening, especially with lower gas prices currently.

I think the switch should be delayed for a different reason: weather.
Since people sometimes need to adjust their external antenna, it's sometimes dangerous to do that in winter.

I agree with those above that another delay is unnecessary and unwarranted. This govt. encouraged/forced change to a new technology started 10 years ago. The public has known for the last few that it's impending. There has been more than enough news coverage to ensure that the public was sufficiently informed. While the airways are indeed owned by the Federal Govt., that doesn't necessarily convey a "right" to OTA television. Broadcast, be it TV or Radio, has limited roots in the First Amendment. It's not protected like Newspapers are. In order for the spectrum to be freed up for other uses, perhaps new and innovative technologies, it's necessary to finally kick inefficient analog to the curb. It sucks for the small portion of the 15% of Americans that don't have cable who can't afford to, or simply refuse to, pay for a new TV with an ATSC tuner or for a converter box. They have had ample time to budget for the purchase, and they shouldn't be rewarded for their unpreparedness or laziness. And really, what's another month or two going to do?
I also agree with the poster above who thinks that the program to subsidize the boxes was a waste of money. My guess is that most people who got the coupons didn't need them and those who did need them didn't get them. Further, the govt. gave more than enough notice of this transition that subsidizing the boxes was unneeded. I refuse to believe that even the most destitute person who owns and watches TV can't scrape together $60 in 2 years to pay for the box.
Finally, it's in the Broadcaster's best interest to switch to digital. They can push more information over their assigned spectrum, which they didn't have to pay for (incumbent broadcasters were given the digital spectrum for free). Access to the airways (for broadcasters) is a right, and if they don't like the conditions attached, I'm sure there's another firm lying in wait that would be happy to take their license and associated spectrum.