Yesterday's New York Times featured an article by Eric A. Taub:  In Move to Digital TV, Confusion Is in the Air... and a dubious piece of journalism it is.  In an ironic twist, the article is flawed by the same fundamental problem that besets the DTV transition in general:  an ignorance of the physical realities of the subject, and an unwillingness to seek out and listen to genuine experts with real-world experience.

Mr. Taub has crafted an article purporting to discuss technology, largely on the basis of quotes from a policy analyst at Consumers Union, with brief text bites from an engineering consultant and a  bureaucrat.  Apparently at the Times, it is no longer in fashion to find the most directly involved or knowledgeable sources -- for instance, policy makers at the FCC, system architects with the ATSC, or engineers at local television stations who are fielding a rising tide of calls from confused and worried viewers.  For just over 100 years the Times' masthead has read, "All the news that's fit to print" -- but this article is far closer to George Carlin's quip, "I call 'em as I see 'em... and if I don't see 'em, I make 'em up."

It should be no surprise, then, that this piece is studded with fanciful assertions and misleading or downright wrong details.  Let's take out the red pencil and do some fact checking.  Oops -- can't do that, red pencils are no longer politically correct... too aggressive.  Grab a more tranquil color like cerulean blue, and follow along with me:

"The Federal Communications Commissions sponsored a Nascar race car as part of its effort to inform Americans that on Feb. 18, television signals transmitted over the air will be transmitted solely in digital format. Old TV sets will no longer work."

The lead paragraph, and already we're in trouble.  First of all, the February 17 shutdown of analog transmitters does not apply to low power or class-A stations, nor does it apply to analog translators.  Second, old TV sets can work just fine in a digital future: that's why converter boxes exist. 

Taub goes on to draw a parallel between the FCC's ill-fated NASCAR sponsorship and the troubled DTV transition -- but never stops to consider the prudence of spending over a third of a million dollars of public money on the stuff of male hobbies, when the people to reach seem to be elderly shut-ins.  And we will pass over that question too.

We then launch into the meat of the article, which is now principally driven by Consumer Reports' policy analyst, and come to this:

" 'We need boots on the ground,' said Joel Kelsey, a Consumers Union policy analyst. Mr. Kelsey advocated armies of people, from firefighters to television industry personnel, going into homes and setting up converter boxes for consumers."

Boots on the ground?  That's a nice power-vocabulary focus group euphemism.  But firefighters?  Why on earth would we divert a segment of government workers who actually produce a useful and tangible service, when there are so many others who have nothing better to do, for example, than to dream up things like NASCAR sponsorships?  Let's get some of these dreamers into Mrs. Brown's living room to explain why they can't make her converter box work with rabbit ears... and why they forced a workable system to shut down before its replacement could be proven and implemented.

"A number of people involved in the switch to digital think the Feb. 17 deadline will leave millions of Americans bewildered when their TVs stop working."

I could ask why these anonymous involved people insist on plowing ahead despite the predictable disruption (a question Taub should have asked), but the phrase that makes me cringe is "the switch to digital".  The vast majority of television stations have been transmitting digital signals for quite some time - in our case, the better part of five years - so February 17 is not a switch... it's an end to analog.  Splitting hairs?  Not at all, there's a very important difference: people can and should be setting up their digital converter boxes now, not waiting until their TVs show nothing but snow.

" 'This transition is possibly one of the worst understood consumer education programs in modern times,' said Richard Doherty, an analyst with the Envisioneering Group."

Probably true... but here is an interesting source.  Envisioneering was started some 20 years ago by Mr. Doherty, who has an impressive background in engineering... but who now apparently specializes in consulting and media punditry after a stint as a writer for an engineering trade magazine.  It's a shame, really, that Doherty wasn't the prime source for the article's technical background -- his broad experience and credentials could have been useful.  Anyone could have supplied the generic and obvious quote that there is finger pointing to come; but Doherty could have given Taub a solid grasp on the topic he was assigned to write about.

"There were problems from the start.  Consumers complained on the Consumer Reports Web site that boxes were not available locally before their coupons expired. 'Why can't you reapply for a voucher?' said Mr. Kelsey of Consumers Union. 'This is a transition mismanaged from the get-go.'"

One wonders why frustrated consumers would not take their complaints directly to the NTIA or to their elected representatives -- who actually have the power to do something about the problem -- rather than complain uselessly on CU's web site.  But one also wonders about Mr. Kelsey's comment: does the fact that the coupons have a finite life span before they expire constitute some form of mismanagement?  Or is it through mismanagement that the NTIA actually got their bureaucracy running in time to make coupons available when the first eligible converters hit store shelves?  Not being able to renew lapsed coupons might be debatable policy -- but implementing that policy fairly efficiently isn't mismanagement.

"...[R]abbit ears intended to receive only VHF broadcast channels may need to be replaced with new digital units."

Apples and oranges, folks.  Yes, rabbit ears are primarily used for VHF channels -- whether the signal is analog or digital makes no difference.  There is no magic that makes an antenna suitable for digital, and many antennas billed as having special digital properties are 21st century swamp water.  Most DTV stations are in the UHF band, with the remainder in the upper VHF channels.  If you want to receive a reliable DTV signal, the fundamentals are no different than they ever were:  you need an antenna that covers the channels you want to watch, one that rejects interference and distorting reflections, so that the receiver can stay locked to the desired signal.

"And on the day of the conversion..."

It isn't a day of conversion, Eric, it's the day the analog shuts off... the last day of a transition that has been running for several years.  February 17th isn't the beginning of the digital highway... it's the last foot of the on-ramp from analog.  Goodness, what a terrible metaphor!

"...consumers will also need to direct their converter box to scan for channels."

Consumers should already be using their converter boxes; most stations are already operating on their final DTV channels.  Yes, a rescan will be needed every time a station changes their DTV channel or when a new DTV station lights up... but that will be an ongoing phenomenon lasting days, weeks, or months as straggling stations decommission out old analog transmitters and install new digital transmitters in their place.

"If they want an up-to-date electronic program guide, they will need to have the box rescan the channels regularly."

Nonsense.  Scanning for channels merely tells your receiver which stations are available so that you can channel surf without stepping through vacant channels.  Each station transmits its program guide data continuously, and your receiver reads it automatically while you are watching that station.  Rescanning has nothing at all to do with the program guide.

"To make matters worse, the transition date occurs when the weather in most of the country is at its coldest and iciest."

Astute analysis, this.

" 'We're asking the elderly to go out in the snow to buy a converter box?' Mr. Kelsey said.  'All we need on Feb. 18 is to have someone slip off their roof and get injured as they try to set up a new digital antenna.'"

Hmmm... we seem to be ignoring the fact that the coupon program was launched last winter, so people have had all spring, summer, and autumn to get their equipment in order.  Nobody with any real grasp on what's going on is asking people to wait until February 18th; indeed, we have been pushing people to prepare as early as possible.  The implication that converter or antenna installation should begin on February 18th is not only flat out wrong -- it's an irresponsible and dangerous impression to create.

So what can we learn from this article?  Certainly, there is considerable confusion about DTV -- and the Times has, with considerable prestige, added to it.  Had their reporter considered the qualifications of his sources, he might have written a useful article - but instead he took each source outside of his area of expertise and wound up with a tangled mess of disconnected factoids, misinterpretation and baseless assertions that leaves the reader with the illusion of having learned something of substance.  I suppose the lesson is this:  just as one would not buy tires from a beauty salon or seek advice about over-the-counter medicine at a furniture store, one should not look for authoritative information about DTV technology from a general assignment newspaper - not even the renowned New York Times.

-- Jeff