backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 69 comment(s) - last by Oregonian2.. on Oct 19 at 2:14 PM


NTIA Administrator and Assistant Commerce Secretary John Kneuer, right, gets a demo of LG's new digital-to-analog converter box from LG Electronics USA Vice President John I. Taylor.  (Source: PRNewsFoto/LG Electronics USA Inc.)
The Korean manufacturer received approval for its subsidized TV converter box, among the first in a 2008 government program that pundits predict will be "a real mess."

The federal program to provide free digital TV converters to millions of Americans took another step forward this week with the approval of the first certified converter box designed by a major electronics maker.

LG Electronics got the green light for it TV converter design from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), a U.S. Department of Commerce agency charged with reviewing and certifying the digital-to-analog converters. It is the first such design from a major supplier to pass muster with the agency, paving the way for a new crop of subsidized devices that will allow conventional analog TVs to receive digital broadcasts. In late September, another Korean manufacturer, Digital Stream Technology Inc., announced that its two converter models, the DigitalSTREAM D2A1D10 and DigitalSTREAM D2A1D20, had also been approved by the NTIA.

The converters are a key component of the federally mandated DTV switchover to all-digital TV programming in 2009. At that time, American TV viewers who rely on over-the-air (OTA) broadcast signals for TV reception will no longer be able to view local television programming on older analog TVs without using a digital converter equipped with an ATSC tuner.

Viewers who depend solely on antennas for TV reception are clearly in the minority, yet their numbers are still significant, according to TV industry pundits such as Phillip Swann, president of TV Predictions.com. Officials are estimating that about 20 million U.S. homes receive OTA broadcasts, Swann says, which amounts to more than 20 percent of all TV viewing households in the country.

"A lot of homes have analog TVs that are going to need converter boxes to continue to receive television broadcasts," he said. That means demand for the digital TV converters will be high -- along with demand for the government-issued $40 coupons that will become available on Jan. 1, 2008.

The coupons for TV converters will be free for the asking to anyone, regardless of their income level or citizenship status, Swann said. As a result, he expects the $1.5 billion digital TV subsidy program to become "a political football," as partisan rhetoric heats up in advance of the next presidential election.

"There is no income threshold. You could be Rockefeller or an illegal alien," Swann said. "All you have to do is say, `Give me my TV converter coupon.'

"One of the concerns is that the people who really need them may not get them."

Another concern is that the poorest Americans -- who are most likely to rely on old analog sets and OTA reception, often because they can't afford subscriptions to cable or satellite TV programming -- will find that the $40 coupons aren't enough. "In most cases, the converters are going to cost $60 to $70, so you'll still need to shell out $20 to $30 at the store," Swann said.

The giveaway is not great news for retailers or consumer electronics manufacturers either, according to Swann. Swann predicts that Wal-Mart will be among major retailers that choose not to carry the products.

"No CE company or retailer is going to make a lot of money on a $50 or $60 product," Swann says. "They want people to come in and buy TVs but not these (inexpensive) products."

Since the coupons cannot be used to buy anything else, such as going toward the purchase of a digital TV with a built-in ATSC tuner, the opportunity to upgrade coupon holders will be meager, he said.

With some major retailers refusing to participate in the program, and the political in-fighting and finger pointing that is sure to ensue, "It's going to be a mess next year," Swann said, "I guarantee that."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

kinda funny
By darkpaw on 10/15/2007 9:26:48 AM , Rating: 6
quote:
Another concern is that the poorest Americans -- who are most likely to rely on old analog sets and OTA reception, often because they can't afford subscriptions to cable or satellite TV programming -- will find that the $40 coupons aren't enough. "In most cases, the converters are going to cost $60 to $70, so you'll still need to shell out $20 to $30 at the store," Swann said.


Funny thing is most of the poor people I know (I'm related to quite a few) would sooner pay for cable then buy clothes for their kids.




RE: kinda funny
By iFX on 10/15/2007 9:32:58 AM , Rating: 3
Most of the poor people I know already have an HDTV with a digital tuner and don't need the box! They also can't afford to put gas in their car!


RE: kinda funny
By iFX on 10/16/2007 11:21:37 AM , Rating: 3
Ohhh. Eated down for calling it like I see it. I guess I offended some poor shmucks who are so far in debt they can't drive to work - BUT they have an HDTV! ZING!


RE: kinda funny
By Samus on 10/16/2007 12:32:24 PM , Rating: 2
PRIORITIES PRIORITIES!


RE: kinda funny
By FITCamaro on 10/15/2007 9:55:24 AM , Rating: 5
I'm just pissed that the federal government is paying for it at all. If you want to watch TV fine, but it isn't the governments responsibility to provide you the means. I must have missed in our laws where it says you have the right to watch TV.

Whats next? $500 vouchers so poor people can have computers? Extra taxes on internet service so poor people can have free internet access (like there already is for phones)?

You want to watch TV? Fine. But you should have to pay for the box yourself or do without. And yes, often times you see poor people with brand new cell phones, $3000 rims on a hunk of junk, and their kids barely have clothes and they live in a shack. But hey, life was hard for them so they deserve free stuff.


RE: kinda funny
By cobalt42 on 10/15/2007 10:51:18 AM , Rating: 5
I think the logic is that the government still views television (with free, over-the-air broadcast) as the most common way to disseminate information to the masses, including things like presidential broadcasts, tornado warnings, city council public meetings, etc. Computer subsidies actually make sense in this regard because they're more of a pull media than a push.


RE: kinda funny
By cobalt42 on 10/15/2007 10:52:10 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry, I mean computers make *LESS* sense than OTA TV.


RE: kinda funny
By euclidean on 10/15/2007 6:06:33 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly...plus they were the ones deciding to take away the analog broadcasts...so if they take something away from someone, shouldn't they help them replace what they're missing? eh.


RE: kinda funny
By surt on 10/15/2007 11:05:42 AM , Rating: 1
It's the government's responsibility because they license the airwaves. They essentially made a promise, years back, that if you invested in a tv, you'd be able to watch television. Now they're pulling the rug out from under those who made that investment. It seems pretty reasonable that the government spend some of the licensing revenue they're getting from those airwaves on fulfilling the promises they made in order to make the airwaves licensable.


RE: kinda funny
By zombiexl on 10/15/2007 12:32:55 PM , Rating: 3
People have known this w3as coming since the mid-late 90's. Its not like they said ok next week were turning off all analog TV signals.

People (myself included) have continued to invest in TV's without the digital tuner, why does that become a burden on the tax payers?

If you pay taxes and are not downright livid about how your tax dollars are being spent then please dont vote in the next election becuase obviously you dont understand how out of hand these "special programs" have gotten.


RE: kinda funny
By Kuroyama on 10/15/2007 12:59:43 PM , Rating: 2
My parents have used the same TV for the last 15 years and it still works just fine (they only watch broadcast TV). If the government breaks my parent's TV, that wasn't doing anyone else any harm, then they should help fix what they broke, especially when it'll only require a fraction of the oodles of money they'll make off selling the analog spectrum.


RE: kinda funny
By dever on 10/15/2007 3:19:04 PM , Rating: 4
OK, then I should be able to get $80 tax credit for not redeeming "my" coupons.

Pay for what you use. Money from "the government" is just money from your neighbor. Even though I only have OTA tv, I refuse to accept this handout.

My parents don't have cable either, and I'll be encouraging them not to use this handout. Everyone, have a little respect for your fellow citizen and pay for your own entertainment.


RE: kinda funny
By zombiexl on 10/15/2007 4:30:01 PM , Rating: 2
Finally someone else who isnt a socialist speaks up.


RE: kinda funny
By Oregonian2 on 10/15/2007 5:06:18 PM , Rating: 2
I'm very non-socialist but don't have a problem with the coupons. One could argue that the government's cutting off analog transmission and therefore requiring people to shell out $70 for a converter just to maintain the status quo is in effect a tax. It is forcing people to shell out money as a result of their passing a law. If they didn't provide the coupons I could see a class action lawsuit brewing (resulting in the coupons). If this were completely free-market driven, I'd perhaps have trouble with the coupons, but it isn't -- it's all heavily government driven (even if I think it's a good idea for them to have done it and am glad personally of it).


RE: kinda funny
By dever on 10/16/2007 3:04:51 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I agree that it is in response to a government driven mandate. But I don't believe that necessitates additional market interference. The beauty of the free market is that costs are tightly integrated with benefits. You benefit you pay. The further you separate costs from benefits, the more disfunctional the system.


RE: kinda funny
By Oregonian2 on 10/16/2007 7:56:12 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you philosophically, but the coupons are a partial "undo" of the mandated upgrades to analog receivers, and being undone by those who made the mandate. The portion (if any) that's user-paid for the converters is a payment for no benefit other than getting back what the government took away. So it's not really a free market sell/buy device being talked about when looked at on a broad scale.

On the bright side, the coupons are a LOT better than the government contracting them to be built and distributing them themselves (I'm a bit surprised they didn't do that along with the massive mess that undoubtedly would occur).


RE: kinda funny
By FITCamaro on 10/15/2007 11:05:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They essentially made a promise, years back, that if you invested in a tv, you'd be able to watch television.


Standard def TV standards were established like 40 f*ing years ago. So are we not supposed to progress technologically because people are poor and can't afford a $50-60 box? Who's fault again is it that they're poor? Oh right its white people's or the governments. Sorry, keep forgetting that. We all know its not their fault that they didn't study in school and make anything of themselves so that they could get a good job and not be poor.


RE: kinda funny
By Kuroyama on 10/15/2007 11:31:58 PM , Rating: 2
Why don't you lay off on the "angry white man" thing a bit. Your incessant hostility sounds like a melanin-deficient version of Al Sharpton. Perhaps both of you should learn that it's perfectly possible to express your views without blaming other people for everything you don't like in life.


RE: kinda funny
By FITCamaro on 10/16/2007 9:08:48 AM , Rating: 1
I wasn't trying to say that African Americans are the reason. But yes a larger proportion of blacks in this country are poor than whites. And yes, where I grew up, thats who's complained about this kind of stuff. Doesn't mean they're the only ones though. There's plenty of whites, hispanics, asians, etc. who are poor in this country and expect the government to give them handouts.

I'm pissed at anyone who's poor regardless of race, gender, etc. and think that the government owes them something. Or that it's someone else's fault for them being in the situation they're in.

I don't consider myself an "angry white man". I consider myself an angry middle class American who's tired of people expecting the government to take care of them.


RE: kinda funny
By zombiexl on 10/15/07, Rating: 0
RE: kinda funny
By elpresidente2075 on 10/16/2007 2:16:09 AM , Rating: 3
That is why they're your poorest friends. That is also why your "higher income" friends have more money than do your poorer friends. For the most part, at least.

There always have been and always will be poor people. Same goes for wealthy people. It is the people's right and responsibility to help those who are in need, not the government (I won't argue that in America they are one in the same, because truth be told they are not ). It is also the people's right to not help those poor people. The decision is made on an individual basis, and all we can do is hope the benevolence of the people is sufficient.

THE PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO HELP THOSE MORE UNFORTUNATE THEN THEY ARE , only encouraged. I'm gonna ask my senator for my $120 back that they're stiffing me so some poor shmuck who'd rather sit and watch TV than have a job and use his money wisely. Either that, or I'll ask to be given a choice to put that money in (what a novel idea!) a program designed to help poor people learn how to not be poor people.

/rant
I like to help people get what they need to live and raise their general Quality of Living. I don't like to be forced help them get something they don't need, and that can contribute to the general perception of Americans being fat, lazy, and stupid.


RE: kinda funny
By FITCamaro on 10/16/2007 9:11:10 AM , Rating: 2
Well said. Giving to charity is great. More power to you if you do. Once you're forced to though, its not charity anymore. It's a tax.


RE: kinda funny
By zombiexl on 10/17/2007 7:48:13 AM , Rating: 2
Actually I have a number of poor friends/family. I grew up lower income and havent lost touch with friends just becuase i pulled myself out.

other than that, well said...


RE: kinda funny
By GlassHouse69 on 10/15/2007 9:47:48 PM , Rating: 1
that's true.

I dont have cable or paid tv and I have my own psychotherapy business. :D

fucked up as I am :0


Grrr...
By Martimus on 10/15/2007 10:33:39 AM , Rating: 3
$1.5B to subsidize converting televisions. That pisses me off. TV is about as unimportant as it gets. I don't want to pay for that with my tax dollars. I could understand the need for healthcare, police protection, fire protection, transportation, and utilities; but for television - HELL NO!




RE: Grrr...
By Screwballl on 10/15/2007 12:12:46 PM , Rating: 3
agreed

guess they want the people to stay dumb vegged out in front of the TV rather than go open a book or get a better education


RE: Grrr...
By zombiexl on 10/15/2007 12:40:17 PM , Rating: 2
I dont understand healthcare, transportation or utilities. If they are subsidized for a short time while someone gets back on their feet, then maybe.

The problem with ALL social programs is the abuse of them.

Not sure where you live but in the commonwealth of pennsylvania welfare hands out money for cars (including help with maintenance), clothing allowance ($250 i think) if you need clothes for a new job, etc.


RE: Grrr...
By Kuroyama on 10/15/2007 12:53:23 PM , Rating: 2
This is totally off topic, but since you brought it up, I'd rather the government spend $250 buying someone new clothes for a job then spend $$$ a year paying them welfare instead. Same story with the car, since in most places it is nearly impossible to work (and hence get off welfare) without a working vehicle. Same reason why some states will subsidize employers who hire recently paroled criminals, because it's a lot cheaper than locking them up again when they mug you because they've got no job.

These programs are far from perfect, but sometimes you have to spend money to save money.


RE: Grrr...
By zombiexl on 10/15/2007 1:31:10 PM , Rating: 4
The problem is those same people keep coming back for more.


RE: Grrr...
By Keeir on 10/15/2007 1:59:08 PM , Rating: 2
That poor person lives in the State of Penns.

My first job out of college was in Penns. After Federal, State, Local taxes, school taxes, working taxes, taxes on all my utilities etc I figured I was paying more than 35% of my income in taxes. Figuring in the high sales tax (8%) it would not be impossible that I was taxed at around 40% overall. Figuring in the depressed economy, student loans, costs of living on my own for the first time and I barely had enough money to buy a TV... its gets pretty painful watching someone get money for clothes and car repairs that you yourself would have difficultly "affording" even with a college education and a good job.

Since moving to an area with no State or Local income tax and surging economy, I certainly feel like I have a lot greater share of money in my pocket and don't feel quite so bitter anymore about taxes (even though I pay MORE taxes than before)


RE: Grrr...
By zombiexl on 10/15/2007 4:32:39 PM , Rating: 2
Sales Tax in PA is 6% and 0% on clothes or food.

There is also a 1% county sales tax in allegheny and philadelhia counties. That is to pay for the new stadiums the voters said they didnt want to pay for a few years back. The politicians just worked it out as an entertainment tax and said screw the voters.


RE: Grrr...
By zombiexl on 10/15/2007 4:51:17 PM , Rating: 2
You forgot to figure in the hidden 7.65% SS/Med taxes paid by your employer on your behalf.

Those of us who are self-employed never forget that you pay 15.3% just for SS/Med + the average 10-15% federal taxes (some pay more, some pay less its just an average) and in PA there is 3.07% state tax, my local income tax is another 1% (was 1.69% before I moved). Then all the other taxes you mentioned on utilities, gas has over $.30/gallon in PA taxes, property taxes and school taxes that are outrageous. In the end a working man(or woman) keeps less than 50% of his(or her) income.

That doesnt even include the other hidden taxes we pay on everyday items. Everyone know the corporate tax is just passed on to the consumer. The estimates vary so much on the hidden embeded tax for that that i'll use the lowest i've heard which is 10-15%. (some have said its as high as 30-40%).


RE: Grrr...
By Kuroyama on 10/15/2007 7:08:09 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I never said it was fair to give someone money for work clothes and car maintainance, only that it is probably more cost effective than welfare or jail.


RE: Grrr...
By FITCamaro on 10/16/2007 9:26:52 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. I've been out of college for nearly two years and have a good, well paying job. After taxes and everything I loose a third of my paycheck.

I wish you could opt to not pay a majority of taxes with the condition that you never get to draw from government programs like welfare, medicare, public schools, medicaid, social security, etc. Because I don't ever plan to anyway, nor do I think in 40-45 years when I retire that Social Security is even gonna be there.


RE: Grrr...
By B on 10/17/2007 1:14:15 AM , Rating: 2
May I suggesst using your 401(k) and a traditional IRA to the fullest extent possible to lower your effective tax rate?


RE: Grrr...
By paulpod on 10/16/2007 5:43:39 PM , Rating: 3
Just remember that the reason people earning $50-200K pay tax at such a high rate is because corporate officers earning $1M+ paid off congress to get all THEIR income reclassified as long term capital gains and pay nearly no tax.

Income produced by their assets is also extremely easy to shelter from taxes.

And who ended up getting burned by the AMT that was supposed to fix this. The fools earning $200K or less who thought they were voting for "Middle-class tax cuts".

Hint. When people making the law have no sense of "the public good" (as Conservatives freely admit) and are richer than you are, you only exist to make them richer at a faster rate that you can get richer.


RE: Grrr...
By Kuroyama on 10/15/2007 12:48:51 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
don't want to pay for that with my tax dollars

Then it's good that you won't be doing it, as the government will be making more money off selling the analog spectrum freed up by this then they'll spend on these boxes. And even if that were not the case, one could argue that if I own a TV and the government forces it to stop working, then they should at least help cover the cost of making it work again.


RE: Grrr...
By zombiexl on 10/15/2007 1:57:33 PM , Rating: 1
You are either a troll or completely clueless.

No matter how much they make selling the spectrum this money will come from taxes.

No they (the US Gov) are not required to offer you television service. They license the spectrum, they arent responsible for making sure you can get a signal.

We have known for close to 10 years (maybe longer) that this was coming. Hell I bought a new anallog tv for the bedroom 2 years ago and I knew this would happen.

If you want to blame someone blame retailers and manufacturers for being so slow to push the digital technology. Hell my 5y/o HDTV doesnt have an ATSC tuner built in.


RE: Grrr...
By Kuroyama on 10/15/2007 3:18:26 PM , Rating: 2
You are mincing words over taxes. Pay people to stop using the analog spectrum, then re-sell it for more than you paid them, and I'd say that's making money.

Plenty of people, including my parents, have 15 year old TVs that they are perfectly happy with and that they use only with the DVD player and the antenna. In fact, plenty of people with 5 year old TVs are in the same boat because ATSC tuners haven't been widely available for long. If the government takes away their ability to watch TV, plus makes a profit off taking away that ability, then I'd say they should help those people get their TV working again. No, it's not a "right", but it is the "right thing" to do.

It would be a different story if they allowed the stations to keep analog broadcasts as long as they wanted, because then the government would not be actively forcing my parent's TV to stop working.


RE: Grrr...
By zombiexl on 10/15/2007 4:41:13 PM , Rating: 2
You dont seem to understand something that fundamentally flaws your argument..

The government makes no money, they only take money from those who do.

As for forcing them to stop, some of the stations in my viewing area have wanted to stop analog broadcasts for a while now. I'm pretty suce the local NBC affiliate had planned to cut analog Dec 31, 2006. They may have already, i have cabel so i wouldnt know.

So lets just try out this bit of logic. I recently moved and i now live on the edge of the broadcast range and cant get good reception on digital, but i can pick up analog decent. Should the government now buy me a huge antenna and pay for installation so I can watch TV? Really its no different than your argument.


RE: Grrr...
By Kuroyama on 10/15/2007 5:30:19 PM , Rating: 2
So you don't like my argument, fine, but don't try so hard at being obtuse. Ever heard of owning an asset and leasing it out? Even in a perfect free market economy money can be made without actually creating anything. The principle is the same whether I inherit a block of land in Manhattan and lease it to the highest bidder, or the government inherits the airwaves and leases them out.


RE: Grrr...
By Oregonian2 on 10/15/2007 5:10:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We have known for close to 10 years (maybe longer) that this was coming. Hell I bought a new anallog tv for the bedroom 2 years ago and I knew this would happen.


If you knew they were going to come and cut your leg off ten years ago, does that make it okay now when they come and do it?


RE: Grrr...
By rdeegvainl on 10/16/2007 8:53:08 AM , Rating: 2
Wait wut?
Are you seriously saying that analog tv access is anywhere in the same dimension of importance as legs?
That does bring up another thing, I would rather my tax money go to help give prosthetic legs to someone with out legs, than to give people another reason not to use them.


RE: Grrr...
By Oregonian2 on 10/17/2007 3:51:50 AM , Rating: 2
My point is that while providing knowledge ahead of time is good information for planning, it isn't an excuse for the event happening. Knowing that some day analog tuners will go from being used commercially to being made useless in one day (by the government) doesn't make it alright for the government to mandate people purchasing converters just to stay the same. This is something they've done without regard to whether they have told folk about it or not.

I certainly agree that there is no responsibility on their part for people being able to take advantage of the new higher resolution and such, but there is a little in terms of partial compensation for the mandated converter purchase (not fully, because there is a little added benefit to the analog TV, but not a lot).

My example was to dramatize the principal to make it clearer. The converter requirement certainly is trivial by comparison in impact, but the principal is the same (that forewarning does not undo the act).


RE: Grrr...
By rdeegvainl on 10/17/2007 7:14:02 AM , Rating: 2
You are right, forewarning does not undo an act. I agree with that completely. (It does take out the ignorance aspect)
I also think that tax money should not go towards funding people to have the ability to watch TV. If they cannot afford to keep up with technology, they should be working a little bit more instead of watching television.


RE: Grrr...
By Oregonian2 on 10/19/2007 2:14:16 PM , Rating: 2
If this conversion to digital TV was purely a technology and market driven thing, I'd agree with you completely. But it's not. It has been a government orchestrated and a government driven event. Having the TV stations broadcast digital and drop analog hasn't been a TV station driven thing -- they've resisted doing it, not wanting to pony up the upgrade costs. They did it because the government mandated it with government imposed deadlines for both starting the digital broadcasts and the dropping of analog. And even then the deadlines had to be delayed a few times. So although market forces are involved, the government is strongly involved in having people's analog TV's stop working, not just technology and market forces. So having the government pay for new TV's is absurd, but the coupons seems to be reasonable due to their involvement in the converters being needed. But then, I'm philosophically a person that thinks the government should be responsible for costs that it requires others to spend, not having "hidden" taxes -- have them up front and visible.

Mind you, I'm glad the government did what it did -- but they still need to be responsible for what they do.


why...
By Moishe on 10/15/2007 8:02:15 AM , Rating: 2
Why does a converter box cost $50-$70?

If I understand this right, the box will take the digital OTA broadcast and convert it to NTSC? Maybe I don't understand... but that doesn't sound too difficult. It's not "new" tech.

They simply need to create a net/mail-order program where you send in $20 and they send back a converter. Skip the stupid coupons and skip the retailers.

The government is so amazingly inefficient.




RE: why...
By stubeck on 10/15/2007 8:15:56 AM , Rating: 3
A car is not new tech and it still costs thousands of dollars. I don't understand how it being "old technology" means its shouldn't cost much.


RE: why...
By OrSin on 10/15/2007 8:32:34 AM , Rating: 2
You are completely correct. You can get retail board to do just this for under $20. Even in a box this cost under $30.
I'm thinking the government has no clue. And I doubt Walmart would not care a $60 product if they fell it will sell. It alot more likely the box will cost only $30-40 and walmart is not willing to take up shelf space for a item so cheap.

But one thing is for sure you will enver be able to buy this direct from the government. But mail order I can see it happening. NewEgg for all. lol


RE: why...
By mendocinosummit on 10/15/2007 9:52:26 AM , Rating: 2
The government probably said make us a converter that costs around 65 dollars, so they slapped a different price tag on their current products.


RE: why...
By killerroach on 10/15/2007 10:08:53 AM , Rating: 2
That or we won't see a converter for less than $40 because the manufacturers know they're getting $40 from the government no matter what...


RE: why...
By Oregonian2 on 10/15/2007 5:18:35 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I'd expect retail prices to be very close to $40 (advertised as "$20 off!).

I really don't think they'll "spend" the full 1.5B though, that's nearly forty million units, and if I recall correctly there was a one unit per family limit.


RE: why...
By marvdmartian on 10/15/2007 10:37:02 AM , Rating: 2
On the other hand, by making it a free market (you have your choice of which one to buy) system, they might actually keep the price of these converter boxes down.

Imagine if the government just provided these things. First off, they NEVER ( NEVER!!! ) would come out and tell the companies, "You must produce these things for $XX, so we can provide them to our taxpayers at a reasonable cost", which might actually make them affordable and a good deal to the government.

Instead, they'd put it out to the best value bidder, which would mean it would have a bunch of highly useless specs it would have to have, and once the contract was awarded for the boxes, it would cost approximately 3x what it would have otherwise cost! Add to that the inefficiency of having the government send these things out to taxpayers, and the cost of shipping, and you might as well figure 4 to 5 times more expensive!!

Instead, they're forcing the manufacturers to sell them directly to the consumers, and giving the consumers a voucher to help defray the cost. Will it cost more than the $40 voucher? Almost certainly. And just as certainly, the manufacturers will make a killing on these things, as their profit margin will likely be substantial. But I'd bet it's less than if they sold them directly to Uncle Sam.


RE: why...
By kleinwl on 10/15/2007 10:47:15 AM , Rating: 2
umm... if you need this... you probably don't have internet... and wouldn't know where to go even if you did... I don't see this being widely advertised in any case.

If it's not in walmart most people are not going to find out about it and it will be a huge flop.


RE: why...
By zombiexl on 10/15/2007 12:25:44 PM , Rating: 3
I think a better question is why are our tax dollars going towards this?
TV is not required to live.

If someone falls on hard times and needs food, if they need a place to stay fine (as long as its not forever)...

Since when did being able to watch TV become so important that the government (correction, we the people) need to fund it?


RE: why...
By Hacp on 10/16/2007 3:20:02 AM , Rating: 2
Because people's televisions that worked just fine before are being broken? Imagine if it was required that we stop using natural gas. People would be up in arms because their stoves would not work.

The telco wants the spectrum for cellular use, and is pressuring the government to act. Frankly, its makes perfect sense because the air waves are better suited for mobile devices like cellphones.


RE: why...
By zombiexl on 10/16/2007 9:02:41 AM , Rating: 2
I like your argument. I know i use my tv to cook my meals and that tv is a requiremnet to live. You can't compare cooking or heating your home to watching television.

I have an electric stove so i wouldnt care one bit, now for heat that would suck. Besides the gov taxes natural gas at such a high rate they would never get rid of it.


RE: why...
By Kuroyama on 10/15/2007 12:43:24 PM , Rating: 2
A digital TV converter for your PC costs $50+, and that's despite being able to rely on your PC to do most of the hard stuff.


Why dont the big 3 (or 4) subsidize these?
By zombiexl on 10/15/2007 12:45:19 PM , Rating: 2
NBC, CBS, ABC and FOX seem to have the most to lose if people cant get TV over the air. Less viewers = less ad revenue.

Why arent they footing the bill?




By Martimus on 10/15/2007 2:45:27 PM , Rating: 2
That's what lobbyists are for. Cheaper to buy a descision like this in congress than foot the bill themselves.


RE: Why dont the big 3 (or 4) subsidize these?
By Oregonian2 on 10/15/2007 5:21:45 PM , Rating: 2
They are paying insane amounts of money under government orders to pay for upgrading their infrastructure in creating and distributing material to be broadcast in the new formats. Those who own stations also have to pay out big bucks for their equipment and training upgrading as well. They are not getting off with a mere $40 upgrade converter kit.


By Oregonian2 on 10/15/2007 5:25:45 PM , Rating: 2
P.S. - And they're paying all of that just to maintain the same revenue (or even dropping revenue because with cable and satellite, they're now not so important -- we rarely watch "broadcast" tv any more (DirecTV)).


By Hacp on 10/16/2007 3:29:54 AM , Rating: 2
Because NBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox aren't doing anything? If NBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox wanted to go digital, they would have done it on their own. They would have issued their own mandate. Guess who issued the mandate?


Unlawful
By Machinegear on 10/16/2007 12:52:06 PM , Rating: 2
It may have been already stated by an astute reader, but this latest government action is illegal. Like the idea or not personally is irrelevant. Nowhere does the US Constitution give the Federal government the right to use public funds (taxes) for TV boxes.

While typically a reasoning group of readers, you sure argue over how you feel more than the real issue at hand.

This story is a story because it is another clear example of how the big goverment is getting bigger by not following the rule of law (read: Article I, Section 8). The sad thing is the government seems to be accurately respresenting the stupid masses.

I leave the rest of you with a quote from the father of our US Constitution.

"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." - James Madison

Bonus comment: I am not sure if we have freedom anymore if I have to pay for your TV box.




RE: Unlawful
By Kuroyama on 10/16/2007 3:19:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nowhere does the US Constitution give the Federal government the right to use public funds (taxes) for TV boxes.

Nor does the US Constitution explicitly mention the use of public funds to buy a presidential airplane, long range strategic bombers, ICBMs, nuclear bombs, Space shuttles, sewer systems, GPS satellites, etc. So what's your point?


RE: Unlawful
By Machinegear on 10/16/2007 3:50:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nor does the US Constitution explicitly mention the use of public funds to buy a presidential airplane,.. Space shuttles


Exactly.

quote:
...long range strategic bombers, ICBMs, nuclear bombs, GPS satellites


Article 1, Section 8: "The Congress shall have the power to...provide for the common defense."

One can argue whether these provide for an effective defense.

quote:
sewer systems


I hope you aren't serious. You do realize we have a Republic with States in it? The US Constitution governs the Federal government, not local governmental issues like sewers. Wow. Public education at work.

Sorry for my terse response. I hope this answers your question.


RE: Unlawful
By Kuroyama on 10/16/2007 4:49:37 PM , Rating: 2
OK, I was a bit careless in putting sewerage, as I was simply randomly putting down some government goods that many people don't question much.

I think that most "strict constructionists" are like literal Bible readers, in that they find whatever they want in the Constitution and claim that everything they don't like isn't in there.

For instance, the presidential airplane could fit under Article II: "The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation" (at least many corporations include a private jet as part of compensation).

Likewise, I know that you and numerous posters on this forum disagree with me (so let's not re-start that debate), but I believe that the spirit (although not the letter) of Ammendment 5 "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" would include compensation (an ATSC tuner) for taking away the ability of my private property (TV) to function properly ("for public use" being as the government will be re-selling the analog spectrum required for my TV to currently work properly).


RE: Unlawful
By Nik00117 on 10/17/2007 3:32:27 PM , Rating: 2
Actually the gov can do, specifficaly congress.

This is becauset they have the right to spend the cash that we give them.

Now heres what I think the gov is thinking, take the analog signals and sell them to the telecom industry, use that income then to fix all the TVs they broke.

heres why they would want to fix the TVs they broke, the TV is like the Radio, we get information through it the gov wants to ensure that if it needs to almost everyone in america has a TV in order to get the most critical news to the public.

Also public debates and so forth for presidential elections and stuff to keep the public informed so they can vote for good leaders.


Sales
By djc208 on 10/16/2007 8:27:27 AM , Rating: 2
Wal-Mart may not want to cary these things (though I doubt it, they've always been a "since you're here" type of store. After all you may need cables, and while you're in the store why not some groceries or that DVD you've wanted.)

I'll bet money that while Best Buy or Circuit City may not have the boxes they'll take the coupons as a "sale" and give you the $40 off some HD TV with the digital tuner built in. Regardless of the fact that most of these people don't actually use OTA TV. Between the profits on HD TVs and all the extras people buy giving them a $40 discount for your coupon (even though they can't get the rebate from the government) would make up for the loss.




"Well, we didn't have anyone in line that got shot waiting for our system." -- Nintendo of America Vice President Perrin Kaplan

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments












botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki