I get yet another chance to say I-told-you-so. A couple of years ago, when I first started writing about this subject, I predicted that Congress wouldn’t have the guts to go through with a scheme it approved in 1996 to replace analog TV broadcasts with new digital technology. At least not with the kind of underfunded, rinky-dink program lawmakers concocted to allegedly protect the poor and elderly viewers who have the most to lose from the switchover.

Only than a week after House Republicans blocked a four-month delay in the nation’s switch from analog to digital TV broadcasts, Democrats revived the measure Wednesday and pushed it through the lower chamber, assuring that millions of analog TVs will not go dark on Feb. 17.

By a 264-158 vote, largely along party lines, the House enacted a Senate-passed measure extending the deadline until June 12. The Obama administrations supports the bill and the President is expected to sign it quickly.

The wording allows local broadcasters to turn off their analog transmitters before June 12 if they notify the FCC and the public well in advance. Most have been broadcasting on both analog and digital transmitters for more than a year now, at considerable expense, and few have budgeted for the extra kilowatts they’ll need to keep both signals going through the extension.  But it’s doubtful many stations will jump in advance of deadline and risk losing a chunk of their audience to competitors who keep both transmitters humming.

O’Bama administration officials say the delay will give them time to deal with  3.5 million households on a waiting list for $40 government coupons to help them buy converters for their old TVs. The $1.34 billion transition program that provided those coupons has run out of money, and the government has to wait until outstanding coupons reach their 90-day expiration date before it can issue new ones to people on the waiting list.

Analog sets that depend on antennas to pull in over-the-air signals are the only sets affected, but they’re the sole source of TV in about 19 million homes. A disproportionate number of those are occupied by the poor and elderly.

TVs hooked up to cable, satellite of fiber optic services won’t be affected immediately because those providers will continue pumping analog signals for several years, at least.

This means the cable and satellite services are carrying political water for the government, which would have faced lynch mobs if it forced the entire country to buy new sets or converters boxes. Remember, thre was absolutely no public demand for the change. Is there any connection between this cozy arrangment and the virtual impunity with which cable and satellite providers can increase prices? And did I mention that millions of homes with cable and saellite service use also antenna-equipped TVs on second or third sets in kitchens, bedrooms and rec rooms? So they’ll have to spend money to replace or convert them even though they already pay the freight for cable.

By the way, this is the first time Congress has declared a technology obsolete by fiat, and the government hasn’t handled the switchover very well. When the FCC adopted standards for color TV after World War II, it chose a system that was compatible with the black-and-white sets that were just beginning to make their way into American homes. When it increased the number of channels in the 1960s by adding UHF frequencies to the TV spectrum, it didn’t eliminate broadcasts on the old VHF frequencies (channels 2 through 13) — it merely mandated that all new sets have UHF tuners.

This change is an entirely different animal –  the result of a conspiracy (if you will) between the government, wireless network providers, broadcasters and the consumer electronics industry to pick our collective pockets by forcing us to buy something we didn’t want and didn’t need: digital TV.

The reason is that the radio spectrum occupied by analog TV broadcasters has many possible uses. It’s particularly good for cell phones and other wireless transmissions because signals on these frequencies carry so well. With a new digital broadcasting system, local TV stations can broadcast  at least four times as many channels as they do now — or produce a mixture of new channels and high-defnitition broadcasts. So the broadcasters get the opportunity to transmit a lot more shows and sell more ads (assuming anyone wants to buy them).

Meanwhile, because digital transmissions are so much more efficient than the old analog system, there’s plenty of room left over for wireless providers to get their hands on prime real estate for new services. Cable TV has already pioneered this territory: think video porn direct to your cell phone. Verizon and AT&T alone have already bid $20 billion for their pieces of the newly-available spectrum.

Meanwhile, the consumer electronics industry got the government’s blessing to foist an entirely new generation of digital TVs on American viewers. True, they’re a lot better than the old analog sets, but nobody really cared. They never wouldn’t have gotten to market if the American government hadn’t made perfectly good, existing TV technology obsolete.

Even this might have been okay if the billions of dollars that Americans consumers and broadcasters were induced to spend actually did some good here. But outside of the minium wage ”sales associates” who peddle these things in Best Buy and Wal-mart, the money we’re paying goes to foreign manufacturers and workers — further crippling our balance of trade.

So where’s the public good in all this? Somewhere along the line, U.S. police, fire, national guard and other “first responder” agencies were supposed to get a chunk of the newly-available radio spectrum for their communications. But the only part of the whle scheme the FCC concocted for this — a proposal to build a public/prive network that first responders could use in emergencies — got no interest from serious bidders.

So what we have here is the perfect public ripoff. I’m sure that after the government figures out a way to give away a few hundred million more to help the old folks buy converters, the switchover will occur. What most people don’t realize is that digital transmissions may look better on your TV, but they don’t travel as far, and they’re more prone to interference from hills, buildings, towers and other objects. Once the switchover occurs, a lot of viewers won’t be able to get the channels they were getting before, unless they’re willing to buy new antennas (more money overseas) or switch to cable or satellite. Like I said, the perfect ripoff.

Want to know more? The Los Angeles Times has done a good job covering this subject. You can find links to more than 1,000 other stories on the DTV postponment by consulting our good friends at Google.