Obama's Cabinet

[The Laughing Man]

But they're not too poor to own a TV. Sorry, TV's nice, but the government has no reason to pay for anyone to watch it.

People benefit from regular sex as well, but I don't see the government handing out hooker coupons.

Edit- To be clear, I have nothing against public television. Everyone loves Sesame Street and the Electric Company. That's not the issue. The issue is that the conversion to digital was announced over two years ago, and a converter is no more than $50. I find it incredibly hard to believe that there are people who couldn't budget $2 a month for a converter box.

But taking all that into account, the government is still providing the free service. The government has no responsibility to provide the means to receive it. Should they give out coupons for free TVs for those who can't afford them?

I think if it was you and the govt decided to force everyone to convert to digital tv, and hence forced you to go out and buy a box just to watch it, you'd be singin a different tune, and this subject would be about that instead. besides, the govt spends billions of dollars on PBS, and the people most likely to watch it, meaning BENEFIT from PBS, are the ones who don't have cable. how can the govt provide such a costly and highly educational service as PBS, and then do something that prevents some people from watching it?

[Cail]

I think you have no idea what you're talking about when you make guesses as to what I'd do, and I'll thank you to keep those guesses to yourself.

Secondly, the government spends $3-400 million on PBS, not billions.

Next, your demographics for the average PBS viewer couldn't be more wrong.

And finally, the government is not preventing anyone form watching PBS or any other over-the-air programming. They are requiring that you have the equipment to watch it.

I'll ask again, what about the families too poor to buy a TV? Should the government voucher them too?

[The Laughing Man]

I think you have no idea what you're talking about when you make guesses as to what I'd do, and I'll thank you to keep those guesses to yourself.

Secondly, the government spends $3-400 million on PBS, not billions.

Next, your demographics for the average PBS viewer couldn't be more wrong.

And finally, the government is not preventing anyone form watching PBS or any other over-the-air programming. They are requiring that you have the equipment to watch it.

I'll ask again, what about the families too poor to buy a TV? Should the government voucher them too?

I just re-read the forum guidelines, and it doesn't say anything about second guessing. But I'm sure you already knew that.

[Cail]

No it doesn't, which is why I asked you not to do it rather than told you not to and edited it out of your post.

Care to address the points I made or are you just going to attack me?

[Cagliostro]

Parker Lewis rocked!

Yeah! Another Parker Lewis fan! Where are the damn dvds? They have Square Pegs on DVD (under the category of little known 80's shows). Didn't Parker Lewis last longer?

Edit- To be clear, I have nothing against public television. Everyone loves Sesame Street and the Electric Company.

I hate to break it to you, but the Electric Company has been off the air for years.

Back to the topic:
I did a moderate amount of searching and found this.

Access to communications in the 21st century is not a luxury; it is a necessity. 21 million households rely on analog television — many of which include low-income families, the elderly, minorities and individuals with disabilities. Many of these people are unaware of the switch and will need help making the transition.

I don't know if I buy that, but here is more.

I'm still not quite convinced that this is a "necessity." After all, people can get their news through other sources. And aren't sirens still in use for the bad stuff. Has everyone gotten rid of their radios?
It seems like advertisers are who benefits most from pushing back this change. As for the coupons, I'm not finding any info on the why's other than that tv is a necessity.

Somebody at another forum was upset that this was being pushed back, as he worked at a PBS station that has an analog signal that they need to do some upkeep on, but have been lagging on as it will become obsolete soon, or so they thought. They have been looking forward to losing the signal so that they can allocate that money elsewhere. Just a couple weeks ago, his job was made redundant and he was let go. It might not have anything to do with the analog signal funds, but cutting of funds often equals loss of jobs. He didn't imply this was the case though; this is just my speculation.

[Cail]

I would totally buy the Parker Lewis DVDs if they came out.

See here's the thing, I don't buy the "necessity" argument for a second, since the government isn't buying TVs for those who don't have them. Sure, TV is nice, but for emergency alerts, there's radio (you know, what our parents and grandparents survived with).

[Zarathustra]

Cail, imagine if the government decided roads are a thing of the past, and hover cars are the way of the future. So they tear up all the roads, even though your car works just fine. Now you can't drive.

Ok, maybe not a good analogy. But government action is rendering obsolete TVs already purchased. And they're not using our tax dollars to pay for this. I don't see the problem.

[Cail]

It's a horrible analogy for a bunch of different reasons. Let's say that the government phased out leaded gasoline (like they did). Did they buy people new cars?

And again, if free TV is so all-fired important, where are my government TV vouchers? What about those poor people with no TVs?

[Plissken]

Again, because they made billions auctioning off the public's airwaves, and got the bill to do so approved by promising to provide these coupons.

Do you have a link for that, or are you guessing? Seriously.

If the government promised to do it, that's one thing, but I don't believe they did.

FCC AUCTION OF ANALOG TV SPECTRUM NETS $19.6B
By Staff
TVNEWSDAY, Mar 19 2008, 8:54 AM ET

The auction of spectrum being freed up in TV stations' move to digital broadcasting generated a record $19.6 billion, nearly double congressional estimates, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin announced last night.

The previous record for spectrum auctions was $13.9 billion in 2006.

The record was set, even though the reserve price for one of the five available block of spectrum was not sold, Martin said in a prepared statement.

“The eight unsold licenses in those blocks remain held by the FCC and will again be made available for commercial bidding in a future auction.�

The FCC began the auction on Jan. 24 and presided over 261 rounds of bidding among companies that plan to use the spectrum for broadband wireless communications.

“The 700 MHz spectrum is attractive to both industry and public safety organizations because it is especially well-suited for wireless broadband, is capable of carrying large amounts of data, can travel far distances, and easily penetrates walls with great efficiency and speed—allowing for more effective and reliable wireless communications,â€� Martin said.

“The next generation of wireless networks to be deployed in the 700 MHz band will be faster than those available today, and they will extend to both urban and rural areas of the country.

“Wireless broadband will be able to reach unserved areas of the country, and it will bring increased competition to the broadband sector that is currently dominated by DSL and cable providers.�

TV stations have been simulcasting on two channels—one analog and one digital—for several years as part of an FCC plan to transition them from analog to digital.

The auctioned spectrum is now being used by stations for their analog service, but they are required by law to give it up on Feb. 17, 2009, and cut over to digital-only operation.

Auction winners will gain access to their spectrum after the planned analog cut-off.

Martin said he would send the U.S. Treasury a check for $19.6 billion by June 30.

Part of the proceeds—up to $1.5 billion—have been earmarked for the government digital-to-analog converter discount program.

Under the programs, Americans may apply for $40 coupons that may be used toward the purchase of converters that will allow them to watch digital broadcasts or their old analog TV stations.

www.tvnewsday.com/articles/2008/03/19/daily.4/

[sindatur]

Wow, this is news to me, thanks Pliss.

Now, I have to ask what happened to those funds, and why they weren't dedicated to the project to cover over-run costs, so we didn't have to have it included in the next President's Economical Stimulus Plan. I'm totally Okay with taking this over-run in take-in dollars and holding it in this specific account (Project...whatever) until it's fully financed, and then taking what's left over. If all Gov't programs were run like that, we might expose some "issues" that we can correct. Obama says he wants to correct what's wrong, and if I was to reply in the "What spells a success for Obama" thread, I think putting costs into the proper buckets and bills, until it's determined there's left over money would be on the top of my list.

I think Sexually transmitted diseases and whatever the other thing was are noble things, that the Gov't should fund, but, it shouldn't be stuck in an Economic Stimulus plan, put it in the bucket/bill it belongs in and let it gain a profit or loss as it happens, (but, know what this specific thing did/caused/benefited...whatever) so you can judge it's worthiness based upon it's stated purpose and the way the funding flows.

[aliantha]

Oh really? I thought it was limited to 1 per person, and once you made a request, you couldn't make a second request, wether it showed up or not. Also, I thought the coupons for $20, to cover half of the $40 box cost? That's what I've heard from my mom, and a neighbor, who are the only folks I know without cable or satellite.

My area of expertise; 2 coupons per household, reduces the cost by $40 on eligible converter boxes. Expire 90 days of issue date, no refunds, no reissue.

My experience as well -- tho I didn't notice the 2-per-household limit as I only had one TV. I actually ordered the coupon for Batty, for the TV I gave her, as she's a poor college student and needed the break on the cost of the converter box.

Let's say that the government phased out leaded gasoline (like they did). Did they buy people new cars?

How long did service stations continue to sell leaded gas after unleaded was phased in? Years, yes? (It's a serious question -- I really don't remember the answer. But I think leaded gas was available for a loooong time.)

[sindatur]

Oh, BTW.. I was either misinformed, or things are different here in California, I'm taking my mom shopping this weekend, and we'll probably get her box, if they're available (I did acknowledge she's a procastinator and needed pushing) as well as groceries, so, I should find out if I was misinformed, or things are different here.

[Cail]

Pliss, I see nothing there that says the government agreed to cover the cost of everyone's transition.

Ali, broadcasters have beet transmitting in both digital and analog for years as well. Just like the gas stations did with gas.

So no one's going to take up the free TV question, huh?

[Cybrweez]

cail, I already emailed the White House and asked for my TV. I said since its a necessity, and mine isn't HD, I need not just the box, but the TV too. I'm Hoping!

[Cail]

I know you're being absurd, but that's the argument that's being put forth. Apparently TV is so important that it needs to be subsidized for everyone.

[[Syl]]

It's the government's responsibility to maintain the airwaves as much as it is for roads, air traffic, and shipping lanes. That doesn't mean the government has to buy you a car, airplane, or boat. But if the government mandated airports went to a new, more secure transponder system, you better believe the airlines would be lined up on Capitol Hill with their hands out, just as they did when reinforced cockpit doors were mandated.

The government doesn't have to do this, but it's in everyone's best interest if they do.

[Cail]

Please explain how it's in my best interest for the government to subsidize converter boxes.

Edit- To take your airline analogy back to cars for the moment, the government mandates all sorts of expensive safety equipment in cars (air bags, antilock brakes, etc), yet I don't recall getting a voucher from them the last time I bought a car.

[The Laughing Man]

if the govt breaks your tv, should they pay you to fix it?

[Cail]

The TVs aren't broken, they work just fine. They've changed the method of broadcasting, and they've given ample warning.

Should the government have bought everyone new cars when leaded gas was outlawed?

Should the government pay me to buy a new car since they've mandated safety equipment that makes cars more expensive?

[[Syl]]

Please explain how it's in my best interest for the government to subsidize converter boxes.

Edit- To take your airline analogy back to cars for the moment, the government mandates all sorts of expensive safety equipment in cars (air bags, antilock brakes, etc), yet I don't recall getting a voucher from them the last time I bought a car.

I think there are already several examples of how it's in the people's best interest up thread. It may not be in Cail's best interest, though if I had to guess I'd say you'd also benefit from intangibles. But you, Cail, are not the target demographic. Just because you can afford Crest (much cheaper than a converter box) doesn't mean the government shouldn't pony up for fluoridating public water.

The government may mandate safety equipment in cars, but that's in production. Despite decades of such, there are still cars older than either of us on the road. They get grandfathered. Imagine how pissed people would be if they were no longer allowed to drive their '57 Bel Airs. Unfortunately, grandfathering broadcast frequencies here would defeat the purpose. And I would be surprised if part of the ATSC mandate didn't also apply to TV manufacturers.