I objected when Monday Night Football moved from over-the-air broadcast television to cable/satellite ESPN after 35 years on ABC. Making fans have to pay to see televised football is nothing short of un-American, I argued to no avail. I objected last year when the NFL channel kept exclusive rights to broadcast a Thursday night game only available on satellite, which you cannot receive if you do not have a southern exposure for a dish. The once public airwaves ceased to be public. What next, I thought: the public will have to pay to watch public television? I hate being right.
Congress mandated the conversion from analog to all-digital television broadcasting presumably because all-digital broadcasting would free up frequencies for public safety communications such as police, fire, and emergency rescue. The government 
says that DTV technology will allow broadcasters to offer “television with movie-quality picture and CD-quality sound.” In addition, the switch frees up valuable chunks of wireless spectrum for public safety and those airwaves can also be used for commercial wireless services, which are private interest.
When the legislation originally came up, television stations were supposed to broadcast analog and digital signal in parallel until 2017. The Bush administration dropped that stipulation and the FCC auctioned the airwave spectrum. The wireless biopoly of AT&T and Verizon Communications paid a collective $16 billion at the FCC auction. Back in 2005 when the Republican Congress passed the legislation requiring the conversion, they set February 19, 2009, as the conversion deadline.
However, a glitch occurred. According to the Nielsen Company more than 6.5 million homes are still unprepared to receive digital signals. The government said 1.4 million households are on a waiting list for an equipment subsidy which is financed by the FCC auction. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration, an arm of the Commerce Department, said it had hit the $1.34 billion funding limit set by Congress to pay for converter box coupons. In other words, the government subsidy for converter boxes ran out of money.
Article comments
1 - Arch Conservative
Quit your bitching and come join the rest of us in the 21st century.
2 - Brunelleschi
I actually agree with Arch on something!
Who even cares?
For the people trying to turn to government for relief with such a silly thing, my answer is-
"Ah, you can't see the TV. That sounds like a middle class problem."
Just don't buy pizza a couple of times and buy your own box.
SHEESH!
3 - Dave Nalle
I think the point the article is making is that old people on fixed incomes have old TVs and no idea what to do about it as well as no funds to do anything.
I actually dispute the claims about how many TVs aren't digital ready. I suspect that they're mostly second TVs that aren't hooked up to much of anything, like the TV in my woodshop which I use maybe once a month.
Dave
4 - Matthew T. Sussman
"I objected when Monday Night Football moved from over-the-air broadcast television to cable/satellite ESPN after 35 years on ABC. Making fans have to pay to see televised football is nothing short of un-American, I argued to no avail."
You do realize that effectively ESPN moved its nightly game from Sunday to Monday and the network primetime game moved from Monday to Sunday?
"I objected last year when the NFL channel kept exclusive rights to broadcast a Thursday night game only available on satellite, which you cannot receive if you do not have a southern exposure for a dish. The once public airwaves ceased to be public."
You can object all you want but it's the NFL's product and nobody is ever entitled to any certain game a week. And when the Patriots and Giants played Week 17 in 2007 and it was stuck on the NFL Network, they did reach a deal which simulcasted that game on two different network stations.
Sorry, I can't read any more after that deeply, deeply flawed intro.
5 - Baritone
Good old capitalism. I have 5 televisions in my home. None of them are capable of receiving a digital signal. I subscribe to Comcast primarily because I also use the cable service for my internet access. We don't receive any premium or pay channels. The duel service costs us around $105. per month. The upside is that I won't have to do or buy anything when the transition takes place.
I'm ambivalent about the problems that may ensue with the Feb. 17 deadline. Undoubtedly, there are people out there who have no idea that anything is about to change. I suspect, though, that most caught unawares will do whatever is necessary to get their old boob tubes up and working. Some won't.
I hardly think of this as any kind of tragedy, but a whole lot of people do depend on the tube for their entertainment, and perhaps, more importantly, for their information - news, weather, etc. It will be troubling for those who cannot afford to buy a converter box - even with a coupon. Nevertheless, it's something that will eventually work its way out. A few might fall through the cracks as it were, but again, for the most part, we aren't talking life and death here.
I'm not a fan of things like the NFL channel. A couple of years ago the Big Ten conference started up its own network. About 80% of all their football and basketball games are aired only on their network. I have long been an Indiana University basketball fan - I whooped it up through Bob Knight's glory years, and suffered through his coming apart years.
Now that I can't watch them play on the tube, they have effectively lost me as a fan. I guess I'll start watching the Butler Bulldogs.
B
6 - Baronius
I didn't have a coupon, so I bought a box and paid full price for it. The whole project is an interesting study in government-run markets, with underestimation of demand, delays, inflation, and rationing. But by all means, let's trust them to run America's dialysis machines.
Anyway, no one has free access to public airwaves. You've got to buy a television.
7 - Dr Dreadful
I suspect, though, that most caught unawares will do whatever is necessary to get their old boob tubes up and working.
Nothing galvanizes a chap more than taking his TV away from him...
8 - Joanne Huspek
Gah! TV. It's the devil.
Now if I could just get the cable to go haywire. The silence would be golden.
9 - Dave Nalle
In followup to #6, consider the poor people in Britain, who in addition to paying for their TV and likely paying for cable or satellite, have to pay a periodic TV tax for every TV they own, just for the privelege of having the box in their home.
Dave
10 - Dr Dreadful
Not quite, Dave. You have to pay a licence if you watch TV in your home. The number of sets is immaterial.
If you only have a black-and-white TV the licence costs about a third of what you pay for colour. There used to be a radio licence as well, but that was done away with some years ago.
The revenue pays for the BBC, which is money well spent as far as I'm concerned.
11 - Dave Nalle
Thanks for the clarification. Of course, it's not money well spent if I have cable and only watch Skye and ITV and the cable news networks, is it. That's the problem with involuntary taxation to pay for stuff like BBC - all freedom of chocie is taken away.
How much is the license, anyway?
Dave
12 - Tommy Mack
OK, cabalists, I was too damn sinister. It is the behavior of congress, not of the NFL that is important. We tend to forget that there are analogue folks out there. Not everyone is as digital as we.
The latest AP story notes that congressional democrats could bring the delay bill up again for a regular vote, as opposed to the 2/3 majority vote.
Tommy
13 - Baronius
Tommy, I'm sure that you would've found plenty of agreement about the NFL if you posted this on the Sports or even the TV sections. Me, I'd spend extra money for a box that made Terry Bradshaw and Keith Olbermann go away. Commentators who think they're wacky-clever drive me up the wall.
14 - Dr Dreadful
Dave,
The licence is currently £139.50 a year for colour and £47 for black and white. According to xe.com, that's $199.15 and $67.09 respectively at today's exchange rate.
As I said, that allows you to have as many TVs as you want and is well worth the money to get a quality broadcaster like the BBC and be able to watch it commercial-free. Sure, there are people who bitch about the licence fee and claim they never watch the Beeb, but you have to take that with a pinch of seasoning.
And I'm all for freedom of chocie, especially if it's Cadbury's.
15 - Dave Nalle
Damn, that's an expensive license. Glad I didn't have a TV last time I lived in the UK. That was like a month's food budget while I was doing grad study in London.
Dave
16 - Christopher Rose
You're a bit confused, Dave. The licence was cheaper back when you were a student and nowadays you won't be eating every day if your monthly food budget is only £139.50.
For that, we get 4 TV channels, 6 or 7 different radio stations and a worldwide news service. I'd call that a good deal.
17 - Baritone
Chris,
That's got nothin' on my cable service. I get "Spike," the MAN'S channel, 2 channels devoted to auto racing AND 2 golf channels! I can switch back and forth several times watching while 2 long putts simultaneously amble across the verdent greens toward their respective cups. You can't beat that with a stick -- or a golf club. It's great!
B
18 - Dr Dreadful
Just to clarify, that isn't the monthly licence fee, it's the annual fee. Would probably cover B-tone's cable for a couple of months...!
19 - Dr Dreadful
Chris,
BBC3 and BBC4 are free to air now? Last I heard they were only available on cable/satellite - or you had to buy a decoder box and/or a subscription - or something. That's great news if they are free.
20 - Christopher Rose
Yeah, they come with the new Freeview digital terrestrial channels and freeview is built into modern TVs.
21 - Dr Dreadful
Cool. And ITV3 etc. as well?
With all those channels, the Radio Times must have a reallyinterestinglayout these days!
22 - Tommy Mack
Meanwhile, back at congress, here is the latest news about the delay vote.
Tommy