Special Section on the Digital TV Transition

From: Leslie B. Tyler
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2007 12:08 AM
Subject: Story about digital TV transition

Sirs:

I am writing to correct several serious errors in tonight's 11:00 pm news program, contained within a story regarding the transition to digital broadcasting in February 2009. A summary of the story, credited to Jonathan Elias, appears on your web site under the headline "HD TVs Become Facts Of Future" wbztv.com/topstories/local_story_290224040 .

First, your story claimed that Best Buy was no longer going to sell "regular" TVs (I believe you referred to "analog") after the current stock was sold off. You stated that only "HD" TVs would be available. This may or may not be the case, though it is certainly not what retailers, as represented by the Consumer Electronic Retailer's Coalition, are apparently planning to do. Retailers are indeed being forced by the FCC towards selling Digital televisions, but those digital televisions are not necessarily HD TVs. The language here is extremely important: this is not a transition to "HDTV", but a transition to "DTV". Please see web sites such as www.dtv.gov/consumercorner , www.ceretailers.org/transtodtv , www.dtvtransition.org , www.dtv.gov , www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts , among others.

There is a significant possibility, perhaps even a likelihood, that consumers will be pushed unnecessarily into purchasing HD TV sets as a result of the combination of incentivized sales people and fuzzy information. True HD TV sets are much more expensive than Digital TV sets. While it is true that HD TV sets will display better pictures when tuned to true HD broadcasts, HD capability is not necessary to be able to receive off-air signals after February 2009. DTV reception will be necessary. The danger here is that salespeople, faced with an onslaught of concerned customers streaming into the stores goaded by alarmist and untrue stories such as you aired tonight, will lead consumers into spending hundreds, even thousands of dollars needlessly in the mistaken belief that this is the only way to maintain TV viewing.

Second, your story claimed that if you were not willing or able to buy an "HD" TV, in order to continue to receive TV after February 2009, you would have to buy a converter box. This is only partly true. Households who subscribe to cable TV will generally continue to receive TV broadcasts on their current, analog TVs without any change. In fact, the FCC recently enacted rules forcing CATV providers to provide DTV signals to all their subscribers, even those who have analog TVs in their homes (see this FCC link). So, those consumers who subscribe to CATV will not need to purchase a converter box or a new TV to receive TV after February 2009.

Third, you reported that converter boxes will sell for between $150 and $250. While I am sure that there will be some converter boxes which sell for this much, so far all announced converter boxes of which I am aware are expected to sell for sell under $100 -- likely around $50~$70. Here is a link to the RCA converter box, already available for $59:  RCA Converter Box.  Basic converter boxes like this one should provide good reception at low cost, and furthermore may be eligible for a coupon issued by the US Government worth $40 towards their purchase.

Fourth, you missed an opportunity to mention the converter box coupon program (administered by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration), which should be of significant benefit to Americans who will face financial hardship as a result of the government's decision to shut off analog broadcasts received by hundreds of millions of Americans.

On tonight's news program you featured a story on Massachusetts government fiscal waste due to the state's policy of hiring police officers to serve as flagmen at road construction sites. Your message touted WBZ's hard work on behalf of taxpayers to help us all save money. It is ironic that in that same broadcast, you encouraged taxpayers to go out and spend needless, excessive sums of money to "maintain" their TV reception. Perhaps you have merely fallen victim to over-zealous PR agents, but frankly I expect a higher standard from your news broadcasts. I recommend that the next time you mention the upcoming transition to digital TV, you check your facts carefully and report them correctly. Even a modicum of internet-based research would have uncovered the two major errors in your story, and might well have led to a better informed and more informative story.