In DTV Transition, Some Rural Areas Could Be Cut Out of the Picture

Congress recently approved postponing the nationwide DTV transition date, the day on which all major broadcast television stations must cease analog transmission and begin broadcasting in digital signals, from February 17th, 2009 to June 12th, 2009.

The deadline extension was approved in part because a government fund set up to subsidize the purchase of digital converter boxes for people who could not afford to buy new DTV-compatible television sets ran out of money several weeks before the deadline, forcing consumers who had applied for government assistance coupons onto a waiting list. The FCC also supported a delay after discovering in the weeks prior to the originally scheduled switch that their phone banks were insufficiently staffed to cover a deluge of calls from concerned citizens who had managed to purchase converter boxes but needed instructions on how to connect converter boxes to their TVs.

The delay should help many broadcast television watchers who weren't able to purchase a digital converter box before the original February deadline get their analog TVs connected to a converter before the switch; the federal government expects to make more coupons available during the delay, and many local charity groups are stepping in to help elderly and low-income people in their area purchase and connect digital converters.

But even if every analog television watcher in America buys and connects a converter box or purchases a new DTV television set before the deadline, some people in rural areas might still see their TVs go dark on June 12th.

Why? There are several reasons.

To begin with, digital broadcast signals differ from analog signals in two key ways that could drastically affect some television viewers' ability to get reception. With traditional analog TV, many viewers on the edge of a station's viewing area are able to get partial reception— the picture and sound may be fuzzy or intermittent, but still intelligible enough for a viewer to, say, catch the weather forecast on the news. But digital TV signals are subject to something called the digital cliff effect: rather than weakening gradually as it travels through space, a digital television signal practically disappears at the edge of its broadcast region, meaning that with DTV, viewers basically either get a clear signal, or none at all.

And digital TV signals are also less "bouncy" than traditional analog TV signals. Waves from an analog signal bounce relatively easily off of and around physical obstacles such as large buildings, mountains and hills; digital signals can be blocked much more easily by certain landscapes or structures. This means that people living in mountainous or heavily forested regions, and even some people living in urban areas with several tall buildings standing between the television broadcast tower may have difficulty picking up digital television signals with a low-power indoor antenna. 

In addition to the long-distance reception issues caused by the nature of the digital signal itself, many rural communities far from television broadcast towers have relied for decades on broadcast relay stations (also known as signal repeaters or translators) that capture and re-broadcast signals from distant television stations to extend a viewing region beyond the capacity of the stations' primary broadcast towers. 

Broadcast relay stations close to urban areas may be owned by television stations themselves, but many in rural areas are actually owned by local governments or community organizations to promote rural residents' access to information.

Unlike primary broadcast towers belonging to major broadcast television stations, these secondary relay stations are not required by law to change over to a digital signal on June 12th. The federal government is offering $1,000 grants to broadcast relay stations to assist in the digital conversion; however, for most existing relays needing digital conversion, the cost of the upgrade is estimated at several thousand dollars. In the current economic climate, some rural communities running their own broadcast relay stations simply may not have the funds to make up the difference. 

The president of the National Translators Association, R. Kent Parsons, quoted recently in an article by David Migoya of the Denver Post, said, "I estimate that 40 percent of all translators, licensed and unlicensed, will go dark." 

What does all of this mean for rural television watchers who live far from urban television towers? To continue receiving broadcast television, many may need to purchase a new, high-power rooftop digital antenna in addition to a converter box to counter the dual effects of digital TV signals' poor ability to navigate physical obstacles and the digital cliff. Even those who already own a rooftop antenna may need to purchase a differently shaped or more powerful kind. Others who currently rely on a broadcast relay to boost their television signal may lose the ability to receive broadcast television at their homes altogether.

Even those rural residents who could successfully access the new DTV signal with a new rooftop antenna might find themselves unable to afford one. Commercially made outdoor DTV antennas can cost $50, $70 or even hundreds of dollars, and installation by a professional (which may be the only option for some elderly people and people with disabilities who are physically unable to climb their own roofs) can cost hundreds more. And, unlike digital converter boxes, the U.S. government has offered no subsidy for digital antennas. Broadcast television viewers who need a new antenna in addition to a converter box to keep their screens from going dark in June will be on their own.

As the DTV delay authorized by Congress allowed but did not require broadcast television stations to postpone the switch, some stations have already started broadcasting in digital on top of their analog broadcasts; others have abandoned their analog signals. And some viewers at the edge of broadcast areas are already reporting problems with their DTV signals.  

Many residents of rural areas already lack access to affordable broadband internet access, and have poor mobile phone reception; cutting rural Americans off from free broadcast television will only further increase the information access divide between urban and rural communities. What can be done to help keep people in rural communities from losing their access to important weather reports, news and information via television? 

Some helpful, technically-oriented do-it-yourselfers have posted free instructions on the internet explaining how to build your own outdoor HDTV antenna from relatively inexpensive materials; the design of a basic antenna is actually simple enough that most people who are handy with a hammer could construct one. But obviously, not everyone will be able to build and install their own working outdoor DTV antenna, and in some places, even a high-powered commercially made antenna will not be able to compensate for the loss of a broadcast relay station.

The federal government, local governments and community organizations must act in concert to ensure that low-income television viewers have access to affordable new antennas where necessary, and that community-owned rural broadcast relay stations get the necessary funding for the digital switch, or thousands of rural broadcast viewers could face dark TV screens on June 12th.  

Jaelithe's mother and kid brother live on a farm in rural Washington state, and cannot pick up DTV signals from the nearest TV station with their current rooftop antenna. Do you have friends or family who will be cut off from broadcast TV by the DTV switch? Are you yourself unable to pick up the new DTV signal in your neighborhood? Let us know about your DTV signal problems in the comments.

Comments

[Nellie Quarella]

We live in a rural area and have digital tv...but cannot receive local, because we are so isolated. The service we have now, we may not be able to keep much longer due to financial hardship. We don't have enough money to pay our bills. We have 3 children who we feel should have access to PBS. We cannot afford an antenna and we are not very handy. So we need help.

[Janna]

I think the country's pretty much ready, even the rural areas. The 3% remaining that aren't prepared, I guess, are the ones uninformed, misinformed, or just don't really care much about the switch.

[Imee]

I have relatives who live in rural areas, their TV reception is okay and they have cable. I don't think they have satellite just yet. Either way, they're ready for the switch (or at least their town is).

[Mrs. G.]

It really bothers me that people don't understand that in some rural areas you CANNOT get digital signals. It doesn't matter whether you have a converter box or digital tv....the digital signals do not go as far as the analog signals. It has nothing to do with being unprepared, uninformed or careless! The government didn't tell people that there would be some who would not be able to get ANY signals. And from what I can see, no one seems to care. We don't have access to cable, high-speed internet or digital tv signals. That's progress for you. We cannot get ANY network tv channels.

[SunMan]

Quit crying Mrs. G.
No matter where you live, there are pros and cons.

I also live in a rural area, the nearest village has nothing and is 8 miles away. I have to drive 20 miles to rent a video (if I so chose to do so) etc., etc.

We are having to make adjustments to get TV from places over 60 miles away. Now that we've got a better antenna, we are extremely pleased and NEVER did we whine like a baby.

So grow up and suck in that lip: There are good things and bad things, and not getting television is not going to kill you.

If it will, then either move, buy a radio, or just grow up and find something else.

To hear you whine like a baby crying "The government didn't tell people that there would be some who would not be able to get ANY signals." is REALLY BEYOND PATHETIC.

And FYI... I'm no right wing zealot, definitely a centrist, maybe somewhat left on some issues and maybe somewhat right on others, but am solidly voting blue!

You need to engage brain b4 speaking.

[jaelithe]

SunMan, personal attacks are seriously frowned upon. Please read our comment policy in the sidebar. If you violate it repeatedly you will be banned.

It's fine to express a difference of opinion, but calling people cry babies for pointing out a real problem is neither appropriate nor useful.

As for your argument: Sure, people can live without television, and many people do. I once chose to go without TV for a year.

But people who live without a TV also often live without live weather updates. Without tornado or forest fire warnings. Without product recall notices. Without boil order warnings or food poisoning outbreak information. Without access to educational programming for children. Certainly, radio can provide some of these things, but not everyone has access to a good radio signal.

I believe people in rural areas should be made aware of the issues causing their lack of television access so they can work together to try to solve the problem, if they so choose, by building or upgrading a community signal repeater, or by making sure everyone has access to a good digital antenna.