FCC official predicts "messy" digital TV switch, probably a three sheeter
Don't let the smooth transition experienced in Wilmington and other tests fool you, FCC member Robert McDowell just returned from a tour in 
Filed under: Home Entertainment
Don't let the smooth transition experienced in Wilmington and other tests fool you, FCC member Robert McDowell just returned from a tour in 
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Dave @ Oct 16th 2008 2:34PM
Oh, crap.
Hmmm... that probably wasn't necessary.
OneLove @ Oct 17th 2008 4:12PM
antennae?
sr @ Oct 16th 2008 2:35PM
Well maybe people in those regions need to watch less TV and find some work or move to where they can find work. I can never understand why people get their homes torn up by a tornado and go right back to find their new home torn up again.
As for Alaska, anyone who is doing useful work over there such as medicine, or oil drilling, pipeline building/maintenance, or catching Alaskan king crabs gets paid very very well for having to live out there. What are the rest of them doing?
As for Montana, you have natural beauty out there just look out the window. Move when you want to do something productive. At least go to Idaho and harvest potatoes. Notice how they don't have problems with this transition.
newsguy @ Oct 16th 2008 2:39PM
You are ignorant, period.
Deeznuts420 @ Oct 16th 2008 3:55PM
stop palin us bro'
sr @ Oct 16th 2008 4:51PM
It was nice to get a rise out of you guys. What are you doing in Oklahoma anyhow? Waiting for a tornado?
lowdef @ Oct 16th 2008 5:31PM
what the FUCK are you rambling about? Really, are you fucking 5 years old? Or just like using elementary generalizations about states? You are one of the most ignorant douches I have come across here. No, everyone in Idaho does not harvest potatoes. No everyone in Alaska that is not a fisherman or oilman does not just sit on their ass. MAYBE...idk just MAYBE the reason they think the transition is going to be messy is because in more rural areas, people DO use over the air antennae for TV for the sake of saving money or because they dont get cable/sat service where they live. Or maybe they have better things to do with their time than piss people off on gadget blogs and read about this transition...
Lowest Ranked @ Oct 16th 2008 5:36PM
I was going to say I didn't see you getting a rise out of anyone, but lo and behold, them simple minded folk like lowdef never fail to disappoint.
CraigJ @ Oct 16th 2008 2:37PM
three sheeter. Is that like a double bagger?
kr @ Oct 16th 2008 2:41PM
It is referring to how many sheets of paper towel you need to clean up a mess.
Marshall @ Oct 16th 2008 2:47PM
That's the polite answer.
Charles @ Oct 16th 2008 2:56PM
Actually, I believe it refers to something else.
When Treasury secretary, Hank Paulson, submitted a bailout proposal to congress, he turned in three pages. 812 billion dollar bailout explained in three pages.
Deeznuts420 @ Oct 16th 2008 3:56PM
hmmmm, im a go with the shit wipes.
shea @ Oct 16th 2008 5:17PM
Well, I believe "three sheets" (assuming paper towels) sounds far more appropriate than "three shit tickets"
Bob S @ Oct 16th 2008 5:23PM
It is from a Bounty commercial:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auh87qrJUg8
lowdef @ Oct 16th 2008 5:23PM
nope 4 sheeter
Lowest Ranked @ Oct 16th 2008 5:32PM
I'm not too certain that most of us actually give a sheet. Or three.
Ricksta @ Oct 16th 2008 2:38PM
All these hillbilly states need to get with the times and get CABLE. That's all you need to avoid any problems. No stupid boxes and it just works. Oh, but you might have to upgrade your 25+ year old TV.
Chad @ Oct 16th 2008 2:45PM
I take it you are volunteering to run cable to them then? Seeing as how most of the state doesn't have a cable provider?
Marshall @ Oct 16th 2008 2:48PM
Hillbilly states like New York, where there are still plenty of areas where cable is not an option?
Ricksta @ Oct 16th 2008 2:48PM
Then they must have more important things to do like:
Harvest grain.
Tend the cows.
Shoot wolves from helicopters.
kjb434 @ Oct 16th 2008 2:51PM
Most states have no cable in rural areas because cable companies see no profit in running cables to them. With that said, many of these place can't even get over the air broadcasts anyway. They have to use satellite which is already digital, unless you still use old C-Band satellite dishes.
Goatee Man @ Oct 16th 2008 3:10PM
@Ricksta:
Ah... Ignorance at its finest.
Besides there being cable service *everywhere* in Montana (along with cell phone reception... I don't know why you people seem to think that we don't have any), we have access to high-speed Internet and just about every other modern commodity out there. Cripes, there's like fifty wi-fi networks within a mile of my house -- at least ten times as many as I saw in Florida. And as far as televisions go, what the Hell are you talking about? You're obviously as unaware as the FCC guy in this article; Montanans are just as "with the times" as the rest of the country, idiot. I couldn't even tell you the last time I'd seen a TV more than ten years old up here, and yes, I've been all over the state. Kindly avoid judging somewhere before you've set foot in it next time.
No, we're not a bunch of farmers or "hillbillies", as you so eloquently put it, and no, we don't all sit out on the range all day and ride horses to school. As a matter of fact, we lead normal, productive lives (and yes, having been born in California and raised all over the country, I can say that), and probably do more good for the country than ignorant, judgemental assholes like yourself.
My God I hate people.
Andrew @ Oct 16th 2008 3:17PM
All they need is a digital converter box the FCC is pushing. The government is even giving out $50 vouchers so you can buy one of these boxes at BestBuy.
Isn't it as simple as hooking a digital converter box between whatever antenna they are using now and their old tv?
By the way cable doesn't mean you need a new TV, people have had cable since the 80s hooked up to TVs dating back to the 60s/70s. I'm sure its the same deal with these new digital converter boxes no matter how much BestBuy wants you to drop cash on a new LCD TV.
atomicthumbs @ Oct 16th 2008 3:37PM
Maybe some people don't want to or cannot pay for cable.
Eric @ Oct 16th 2008 3:44PM
You do know why they shoot wolves correct? It's called predator control. Freakin idiot. Why is this even an issue in this campaign? It's normal practice and accepted.
rovfan @ Oct 16th 2008 4:18PM
@Goatee Man
I live in rural Virginia, and I assure you where I live, there is no high-speed internet unless you're lucky enough to live close enough to town to get unreliable 900 MHz wireless internet (1 Mbps symmetric, when it works, and it's usually slower than promised) and there's no cable. No DSL, phone lines won't support anything over 28.8k dialup. Exactly one cell phone company has service, and they don't provide any data services beyond things bound directly to their phone (games on the phone, apps on the phone, etc, no tethering).
I'm glad to hear Montana is doing well, but in places closer to DC than that, there are still people lost behind the times.
I agree with the rest of your sentiment, though, with regard to Ricksta's comment. In non-tech ways, where I live is much like other areas, and all the same things you said apply.
a ham sandwich @ Oct 16th 2008 5:29PM
@goatee man
i like how you worded that comment. bravo. well there ya go, you learn something new every day.
people from montana are called montanans. who knew?!
Lowest Ranked @ Oct 16th 2008 5:43PM
Rovfan, with such a slow connection why would you waste precious time and bandwith on Engadget?
A Ham Sandwich, I believe the correct term is Montananites....
-Anchorman
Lowest Ranked @ Oct 16th 2008 6:19PM
Apparently, I only have one ball. At least I'm still twice the man as any woman here, which is a rare phenomenon.
Lars @ Oct 16th 2008 6:29PM
Doesn't matter where you live. I live in CA, and TV isn't worth enough to me to pay money for it every month. Saying people are somehow backwards or behind the times for not wanting to shell out cash for a service that just isn't worth it to them is stupid. So your argument of "just get cable" doesn't work. I might watch an hour or two of TV per week. So let's see, 4-8 hours a month for $40, or free... hmm, what to choose? Seems like you're the one who's backwards to me.
Jason Martin @ Oct 16th 2008 6:32PM
I neither have nor desire to pay for cable nor satellite TV, despite the fact that I have more than enough resources to pay for it. The vast majority of TV I watch, which isn't much to begin with, I can get either over the internet, Netflix, or broadcast TV. Sure, there are a few good shows I miss out on (such as "Mad Men", which I will put on my Netflix queue ASAP), but not nearly enough to justify it.
I'm a bit nervous about this transition because a couple of stations in my local area (Houston, TX) have DT signals that aren't quite strong enough to get consistently at my home in the suburbs, although the analogue signal is fine.
Either way, I'm not getting cable of satellite because I don't watch enough TV to justify it.
Caleb @ Oct 16th 2008 11:34PM
In any even remotely rural area in the US your likely to only be able to get 1 maybe 2 over the air channels and cable is rairly available. Being disabled now and on a fixed income I have to live were the cost of living is lower so I know first hand about this. I live in mid sized city (4,000) in Idaho and because I live in town I can get cable if I can afford the $50 a month. That gives a total of 22 channels. No options only one provider and one plan. Only one over the air channel. The same is true for highspeed internet. Only one provider here at $65 a month for DSL no options (plus $58 for the phone line) and until 2 years ago only one cell phone company with no coverage outside of town. Why would anyone coose to live somewhere like this? Well having a fixed income of $8k a year I can afford to own a house here ($230 a month house payment), If I moved where I had coices of 2 or 3 cable providers and DSL providers I'd probably have to live in a 1 bedroom apartment owned by someone else and pay $400+ a month for it. And my $60 a month budget for food wouldn't be workable. Yes before I was injured I lived in a big city and made $50k+ a year, paid $1k a month for a one bedroom apartment (Seattle) etc. Been there done that. What you must realize is that most people that live in rural areas do not have a choice. They live there because it is the only place they can afford. Living here I have a 4 bedroom 2 bath house for less than $40k that was remodeled less than 5 years ago. Being confined to a wheelchair it's nice to live in a place that has more then one room. For that I give up some connectivity. No I don't have cable. My only access to TV is via DVD's or my DSL connection to the web sites of TV channels. But I realy don't feel that left out. BTW before I became a disabled 'hillbilly' I programmed manufacturing robots.
rovfan @ Oct 17th 2008 9:17AM
@Lowest Ranked
I'm one of the lucky few on the 900MHz local service, but also I'm currently at college where the Internet is much, much faster.
Cynthia @ Oct 25th 2008 10:15AM
Excuse me? Hillbilly states? So people who enjoy and recreate in the natural world, understand what a deciduous versus evergreen is, know how to deal with large wild animals and enjoy peaceful, productive lives are hillbillies if we live in northwest states? Quite frankly, I've found ample number of people that enjoy malls, retail-heavy highways, commercial buildings that block the view of the world, freeways, polluted air, need to lock their homes and cars always, and who need to compete with the Joneses, the one's who are closer to hillbillies because of their superficial foci. Seems to me that someone needs to let you jump from a crop harverster into a field where you can spend the summer contemplating the real meaning of your existence on this planet. I doubt that it's intended for shopping. Alternatively, you can hide in the woods near one of my outfitter friends (atop a mountain far from urban life) and listen to them chuckle each night about the city folks who have come to the woods to pretend to be big hunters for a weekend, accompanied by wives who feel it necessary to protect their nails in the middle of the woods. Darn dumb people. But, we tolerate them. They pay. For something that's free. And they pay handsomely. Seems like the last laugh is on...
Boarderwoot @ Oct 16th 2008 2:39PM
I was like "three sheeter.." wtf? and then I got it. The government should either a) force dish companies to offer discounted packages or free service of your basic 5 or so channels to those that can verify that they can't get cable and get rid of the over the air broadcasts. Then they could use the $50 voucher from the government to purchase the required hardware for satelite and not upgraded bunny ears.
Joe @ Nov 21st 2008 1:33PM
what about option B? you only gave on option. LoL
Boarderwoot @ Oct 16th 2008 2:56PM
b) let the whole system die with no compensation. TV is not a right.
BigD145 @ Oct 16th 2008 5:03PM
It's up to the cities to force cable providers to give any channel out for free.
blomster @ Oct 16th 2008 2:47PM
That's Commissioner Robert McDowell. Don't know where you came up with Kelly.
Richard Lawler @ Oct 16th 2008 3:13PM
Me either, thanks though, fixed
YoY? @ Oct 16th 2008 2:48PM
The problem with the program is that everyone and their brother is going out any buying these boxes that they don't need, just because they can or because they don't understand that the digital transition wont effect them. That's why money is running low in the budget for this program. They need to make it clear in the signage and commericals that unless you have rabbit ears to get your tv...don't waste your time or our money.
c-dub @ Oct 16th 2008 3:18PM
Or either spend their money on a flat screen(large or small) w/ a digital tuner built in. I bought a 26" last yr (black friday) and had cable at the place I lived in. moved and didnt have cable or dish(didnt like the prices). Went to Best Buy, bought a $9 rabbit ear "HDTV" antennae, and get ALLLLLL of my HD OTA channels.
So the "black box" is more or less an alternative, but of course the FCC wont tell ppl that...they're part of the Gov't, why would they? That make tooo much sense..And Dubya doesnt like sense...
sr @ Oct 16th 2008 5:01PM
You know what it is? It's really greedy assholes who have digital TVs but they need like 5 TVs in the house and they won't throw away their POS analog TV because today it is a right to be able to have more TVs than number of people living in a household. The only people who should qualify are people with ONE TV that is analog. If you have 2 TVs buy your own damn box.
John @ Oct 16th 2008 2:49PM
LOVE the headline.
Rob @ Oct 16th 2008 2:54PM
If it is like in Italy.... They had a law that analog over the air service was going to be switched off at the end of 2006. This obviously did not happen and the date has been pushed out repeatedly and is now set for 2012.
My mother-in-law lives in Italy and I pretty much decided to play the wait and see game. It is quite possible that the date gets moved again, and even if it does not, perhaps by then her TV needs to be replaced so she can get a new one with DVB-T decoder integrated and avoid the hassles of an external decoder box.
KJ @ Oct 16th 2008 3:13PM
have you not been paying attention for the last 8 years? It was set for 2002... 2004, 2005, etc we have been through this cycle. It's going to happen in 4 months. at the very most 10... I don't get the big deal, if you have missed all the signage/advertising/anouncements about DTV you obviousl don't watch enough TV to care that you may have to go out and get a box after Feb 09....
The one thing this is hurting is people who have satellite but were using bunny ears on auxiliary TV's. Most of them have to get a box or pay more expensive subscription/maintenance fees. I don't get why the communications companies don't treat it like Power/water/telephone.... let me worry about the distribution inside the house... if I want to watch 34 TV's in my 4 person house what do you care? People don't feel like moving a box from room to room if they want to watch TV in the livingroom or bedroom - they shouldn't have to pay for a second fee for the 'convenience' of being able to watch TV in their home without having to move a box every time they change rooms. Condo's, Appt's, and Commercial outlets are different and are already charged on a different rate structure.
7on @ Oct 16th 2008 3:24PM
@KJ
You can run TV from one cable box you know... most people just don't know how. Granted you can watch only one channel at a time, but that's about right.
Neumann @ Oct 16th 2008 3:09PM
I work for a broadcast television station. We have been pumping the hell out of the DTV transition for more than a year now and you won't believe how many calls we field pertaining to it. Most of them are retired folks (read: old) living out in the middle of nowhere picking us up on a 20 year old aerial with a TV that is just as old. They cant (or won't) navigate the government's DTV hotline so we field the calls. I shudder to think of the phone calls the morning of 2/17 when these folks can't get their "Price is Right." That's to say nothing of the mentally and physically handicapped who watch our station like it is the gospel, which is taken pretty seriously here...
Vammo @ Oct 16th 2008 3:42PM
"...who watch our station like it is the gospel, which is taken pretty seriously here..."
now that, is the funniest thing I've read today.