Digitally Transitioned: Really?

So the Digital TV transition happened today at noon.  Uh, yeah…

Only the major mainstream network stations disappeared here.  I’m still picking up analog TV from 6 stations.  So that means we only lost about half of the analog stations previously available in my part of Utah.

Supposedly exceptions to the digital transition requirement were going to be pretty hard to get.  If half of the stations here got them, what makes them so hard to get?  And why did we bother?

The main reason for the transition was supposed to be so we could free up some frequencies (TV channels 52-69) for other services like digital communication (“mobile internet access”) and emergency services (homeland security, etc.).  In truth adding those services only required that SOME TV channels go away.  Okay, I’m fine with that.  The frequencies allocated for TV years ago occupy far more space than we have been using, and they are considered “prime real estate” because of their ability to travel long distances with relatively low power.  Taking some of that away sounds logical and reasonable.  But taking away those frequencies really had nothing to do with digital TV at all. 

You won’t hear me complaining about the fact that we have added digital TV.  Not at all.  High definition is a wonderful thing, and our picture quality is vastly superior to anything we ever had via analog, not to mention some of the other added benefits.  My complaint is with the way that this has been pushed by the government as a “need” to discontinue analog TV.  That’s really a lie.

In theory existing stations could have been allowed to keep their analog transmissions in parallel with their digital transmissions.  The channels they have been using aren’t even being reallocated for any of the new services that are going to be offered.  This has just been an excuse on the part of the broadcasting industry to not be required to transmit two signals simultaneously and equipment manufacturers to sell more equipment, and doing it by pressuring government officials to mandate that by law.  If we truly “needed” to move away from analog, nobody would have been granted an exception to keep using it.

Most of the frequencies being vacated in the VHF band are the sort that they aren’t really considered to be that valuable any longer.  They won’t carry the large amounts of data that higher frequencies can, and they require larger antennas (though the signals will travel longer distances).  The FCC is discouraging (but not disallowing) their use for digital TV, yet they’re still allocated for television broadcast, so nobody else can use them.  Nobody wants to put their digital signal there (for good reasons) but these frequencies are still reserved for television.  I don’t think this whole thing was very well thought out.

To sum up:

• We made this transition to add new services on existing higher TV frequencies (52-69).  Fine, I guess.
• Existing wireless microphones use channels 52-69, so they are no longer legal, and those that own them have to buy new ones.  Stupid.
• Analog broadcasts are being shut down, except when they aren’t.
• Digital transmission is being made a requirement, except when it’s not.  Huh?
• The frequencies being vacated by shutting down analog transmissions are going to be unused. 

Like most government-run programs, the whole thing has turned into a big mess.

Anyone else see any problems in this?