backtop

Print 122 comment(s) - last by blueboy09.. on Feb 2 at 1:17 PM
Senate hopes minor changes will get the House to approve delaying the digital transition

The digital transition has been a topic covered significantly across many publications and in every local market in America where broadcast TV is viewed. It would be very hard for TV viewers to not be aware that the digital transition is coming.

Despite that fact, The Nielsen Company estimates that there are as many as 6.5 million homes in America that are unprepared for the digital transition. President Obama and the Senate want to delay the digital transition from the widely marketed February 17 date until June 12 in order to give those not prepared for the transition more time to get ready.

The Senate unanimously approved a bill that would postpone the transition until June last week and sent the bill to the House for a vote. The House voted against the bill, kicking it back to the Senate. Reuters reports that the Senate has made minor changes to the bill and has again voted unanimously to approve the delay in the digital transition and sent the bill to the House for a vote again.

Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Rockefeller said, "The House will have a second chance next week to implement this delay. I am hopeful they will pass this bill so we can send it to President Obama."

Exactly what provisions in the bill the Senate changed in hopes of getting House approval is unknown. Should the House approve the bill, Obama will sign the bill into law.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Why?
By therealnickdanger on 1/30/2009 10:38:40 AM , Rating: 5
They already scored an additonal $650million for converter boxes in the "stimulus" bill. So some people are going to have to WAIT to get their free boxes. BFD. I'd like to visit the senate floor with a giant stick and just randomly beat people until they start using OUR money wisely.




RE: Why?
By Bender 123 on 1/30/2009 10:45:26 AM , Rating: 5
No kidding...
Four years of constant scrolling across my TV screen seems like a pretty effective way to do this and now everybody is ready to go in two weeks.

If you aren't ready by now, four months is not going to help you...100% will never comply until forced, I wish the govt would realize this and move on. Either those people will figure it out quick or they will need to be left behind for the good of the rest.


RE: Why?
By Targon on 1/30/09, Rating: -1
RE: Why?
By MrBungle123 on 1/30/2009 11:29:13 AM , Rating: 4
and the rest of us should have to pay for these people burying thier collective heads in the sand why? There are businesses out there that paid millions of dollars to get access to the broadcast frequencies that are taken up by analog TV and making them wait to use these until June is only going to cost them more money. I would much rather see some retard in a trailer park go without TV because they are too stupid to realize that they need a converter box after it has been plastered all over every channel for the last 4 years, then a business that supports peoples lively hoods take on more loss.


RE: Why?
By Hiawa23 on 1/30/2009 12:11:43 PM , Rating: 2
I still believe they shouldn't extend anything. Even if they extend until June, I bet come May there will be plenty screamin for an extension. Personally, I really don't care as it really doesn't affect me one way or the other, but there will come a time where Americans are going to have to take some personal responsibility as to what happens to their lives & not look to govt to save or rescue them.


RE: Why?
By axeman1957 on 1/30/09, Rating: -1
RE: Why?
By ice456789 on 1/30/2009 1:50:17 PM , Rating: 1
That 2% probably STILL isn't aware of the transition. They have no idea that their TV's are about to stop working and when they do they'll probably try to get them repaired.


RE: Why?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 1/30/2009 2:06:17 PM , Rating: 4
At which time the repair guy will be like, oh wait, you just need this here $60 box and connect it like so. The customer pays the $60 and goes on their merry way. Where is the problem that requires an extension?


RE: Why?
By Oregonian2 on 1/31/2009 2:18:49 AM , Rating: 1
Um... I think a repair guy will say "oh wait, you just need this here $120 box".

:-)


RE: Why?
By gstrickler on 1/30/2009 5:28:06 PM , Rating: 3
A delay would be bad for the economy. The people who haven't upgraded yet will (mostly) not go without TV, they will spend money on a converter box and/or antenna and/or new TV and/or someone to install those things for them, but they won't do that until they have to. The sooner those people start spending money, the better for the economy.

Most full-power analog stations are currently broadcasting both analog and digital signals on two different frequencies. Those stations are having to pay for the electricity for two broadcast systems. That's not a trivial amount of money, for example, a UHF station with 5MW ERP and a 20Db antenna is using 50KW (after conversion) of electricity, which is really 70KW-100KW of power). Broadcasting 24hr x 30days/mo, that's 70KW x 24hr x 30 KWh = 50,400KWh/mo x $0.15/KWh = $7,560/mo for the electricity to continue broadcasting the analog signal. Multiply that by a 4 month delay, that's $30,000 per UHF station, times at least 1000 full-power UHF stations = $30M-$43M additional electricity. Differences for VHF stations are not as dramatic, but add another $3M-5M or so. That $33M-$48M would be better spent on something other than electricity.

It also represents up to $650M in additional funding the government doesn't have to spend to give coupons to the procrastinators.


RE: Why?
By bodar on 1/30/2009 9:23:03 PM , Rating: 2
Hell, Hawaii made the transition already 2 weeks ago, so they could dismantle some analog towers to save a species of bird. To my knowledge, there have been no TV-related riots.


RE: Why?
By Oregonian2 on 1/31/2009 2:23:25 AM , Rating: 2
Reports I've seen say the new version makes the changeover delay optional for TV stations, they can switch on schedule if they want to (I had thought this was supposed to be in the first version, but apparently not).

Article I read today said that my local stations are moving on schedule "anyway".

This late in the game I'd expect pretty near 100% of stations are ready to switch and have things already scheduled down to the minute and work crews long set in their tasks coming up.


RE: Why?
By omnicronx on 1/30/2009 1:33:24 PM , Rating: 2
There are many areas in the US that already have the '700mhz spectrum' clear. As the two priced parts of the spectrum C and D block are going to be nationwide setups, there is no reason to think that delaying the shutdown to June is going to hinder their ability to test and begin deployment if they so choose.

I don't agree one bit with the delay, but it seems everyone is throwing around the idea that this delay will affect these businesses, which in reality it will not. Verizon for example won't even begin widespread testing until later this year.


RE: Why?
By Keeir on 1/30/2009 2:02:45 PM , Rating: 3
I guess thats not really the whole point

The idea is that the US government entering into an agreement with Businesses that they could if they so choose use the spectrum in the areas they have purchased it...

Now, the US government is partially backing out... this is bad for credibility and trust in the government, lowering the future prices for such goods.


RE: Why?
By hduser on 1/30/2009 2:33:49 PM , Rating: 5
I think the government is afraid that once these 6.5 million people are without their TV that they'd start doing something else like thinking or working or living. The government can't have that. TV=Mind Control We welcome our overlords.


RE: Why?
By Chaser on 1/30/2009 11:40:10 AM , Rating: 5
I agree with you somewhat that the average computer savoy tech reader has an advantage over many others that this bill is trying to address.

quote:
The basic idea is that like the telephone, the television is now seen as an important/critical item for every house to have.

But what I do take issue with it the view that you and many others that support this bill view the television is a "critical" part of a home. I like to think electricity, heat and water are. Important enough to where you take the necessary actions to ensure those things stay on.

Tech readers like me are getting frustrated with the endless repeating almost nauseating commercials, TV scrolls etc about the switch over. If television is so critically important as some put it I'm sure they've either taken care of it, or will possibly get their own converter box -like buying one from Walmart or Radio Shack- to advert this cataclysmic disaster.

quote:
For the "clueless masses", they only realized that they needed a converter box in January,


I believe that no matter what date you set no amount of advertising or deadlines or government spending will change the inevitable: many people won't do anything until their televisions have snow on all their channels.


RE: Why?
By Creig on 1/30/2009 12:02:15 PM , Rating: 2
If having TV is that important to them and they simply can't wait for the voucher to arrive, then they should just go and buy the converter themselves. You're only talking about $40!


RE: Why?
By superflex on 1/30/2009 12:23:20 PM , Rating: 5
But then they can't buy scratch off lottery tickets, pork rinds and 64 oz fountain sodas. Oh the humanity!


RE: Why?
By Kwestyuns on 2/2/2009 11:34:35 AM , Rating: 2
64 Oz. Fountain Soda? You mean a 40 Oz. malt liquor, right?


RE: Why?
By trisct on 1/30/2009 1:02:15 PM , Rating: 2
And here it is again - most people don't really know what the issue is. Even this post says you need a "cable box". The DTV transition has NOTHING to do with cable companies, it is only broadcast television received via an ANTENNA that is changing over.

If your cable company is telling you to get a new cable box instead of basic cable, that's simply disingenuous.
<rant> RCN pulled this in my area, and their "upgrade" was simply an excuse to force anyone who owns an HDTV to rent a converter box, since the standard (free) ones can't handle that. Oh, and you also get to pay $50 to have someone come and plug it into the wall for you. Needless to say I didn't go for that, so instead I get a dozen fewer channels and get to pay the same price. </rant>


RE: Why?
By TomZ on 1/30/2009 1:08:51 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I saw some Comcast ads on TV last night "warning" people to upgrade their cable to Digital because of the coming DVT transition, LOL! Talk about FUD!


RE: Why?
By zombiexl on 1/30/2009 2:22:12 PM , Rating: 3
I've seen a number of comcast ads about the DTV transition, but never once saw this. What market did you see that one in? I know concast is moving all digital in some areas and might be using the DTV transition as an excuse to give their customers.


RE: Why?
By rcc on 1/30/2009 1:10:24 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
If people are without a TV for several months until the vouchers are delivered, that isn't good.


Hmm, why? Are we afraid that they might have to get off the couch and socialize a bit? The housewives of American should be up in arms against this extention, just think of all the extra honey-dos that could get done.

Beyond the semi humor, if you aren't ready after all the hoopla surrounding this, you deserve to be cut off for a week or a month, or two. It's not that big a deal.


RE: Why?
By ggordonliddy on 1/30/2009 8:14:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the cable company is suddenly VERY busy because many people with basic cable are suddenly calling to get a cable box.


What the hell? Nobody with any type of cable needs anything for this issue. The cable company already takes care of the signal before it gets to your house. It is irrelevant whether you use analog or digital cable, or even if you just have the cable company's coax cable going to the back of your 1980s analog TV.


RE: Why?
By Gyres01 on 1/30/2009 12:53:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No kidding... Four years of constant scrolling across my TV screen seems like a pretty effective way to do this and now everybody is ready to go in two weeks. If you aren't ready by now, four months is not going to help you...100% will never comply until forced, I wish the govt would realize this and move on. Either those people will figure it out quick or they will need to be left behind for the good of the rest.


This statement pretty much says it all.....someone please forward this the dips in the Senate....


RE: Why?
By haukionkannel on 2/1/2009 7:46:09 AM , Rating: 2
Yep. We did have that transfer in Finland last year. And if there would have been postponed deadline, I would have delayed of buing the box, until it would have been absolutely must.
Why... The electronic gets cheaper and better all the time. So if the coverment in there USA starts to play waiting game, they can wait forever... Those missing 2% even don't care or are waiting the very last change for various reasons just like I did.
I am not sure, but it's guite possible that continuing to broadcast to older system cost more than those missing digi-TV boxes.


RE: Why?
By quiksilvr on 1/30/09, Rating: -1
RE: Why?
By zombiexl on 1/30/2009 10:49:51 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
but it's a lot better than the usual tax breaks that don't do a god damn thing but put more money in the wealthy people's pocket.

Are you serious? Please tell me you don't believe that the tax cuts under bush were only for the rich.


RE: Why?
By TomZ on 1/30/09, Rating: -1
RE: Why?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 1/30/2009 10:56:19 AM , Rating: 5
Tom, I know your into the dem thing but lets be serious. Hes right, the tax cuts benefited everyone, not just the rich.


RE: Why?
By Dreifort on 1/30/2009 11:14:03 AM , Rating: 2
And the senate Republicans are unanimously voting against the stimuliberous package. +11 Democrats.

And from MSNBC, CNN and FOX News (I force myself to endure MSNBC just to see what everyone is saying), it seems the American ppl are becoming outraged the more they find out about what is contained in the new stimulus package.

While it is realized that funding some liberal pet projects may in fact create short-term jobs, it's still blatantly obvious to the American ppl that this stimulus package was centered on liberals padding their own lobbyist.


RE: Why?
By MrBlastman on 1/30/2009 11:20:10 AM , Rating: 2
I can really see how wasting Congressional time on an issue as critical as delaying the conversion to digital television is going to make a tremendous impact on our Economy.

Egads! This digital conversion balances the whole of society on its shoulders! All the banks will fail and Americans will lose all their jobs if it is not delayed!

/sarcasm


RE: Why?
By TomZ on 1/30/2009 11:41:27 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Tom, I know your into the dem thing but lets be serious. Hes right, the tax cuts benefited everyone, not just the rich.
Funny you would say that, since in the last election I voted Republican.

The truth is, though, that I am a moderate/independent. So to a right-winger, I look like a Democrat, and to an extreme leftie I look like a Republican. I am generally against polarized, extreme views, because in most cases they are wrong.


RE: Why?
By zombiexl on 1/30/2009 11:45:15 AM , Rating: 2
how exactly is stating a fact polarized or wrong?
The tax cuts cut taxes at ALL income levels. I help low income people with their tax returns and they are doing far better than I am when it comes to tax liability, generally getting back more than they paid.


RE: Why?
By TomZ on 1/30/2009 12:04:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
how exactly is stating a fact polarized or wrong?
I didn't state that - you misinterpreted my general statement that was not oriented towards anything in particular, nor to a statement you made.


RE: Why?
By Reclaimer77 on 1/31/2009 2:11:42 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The truth is, though, that I am a moderate/independent.


Hmmmm, lets see.

You are a self confessed anti-war pacifist. You are pro anti-idling laws and other silly environmentally rooted policies. You are against tax cuts. You are for the trillion dollar "stimulus" plan, saying "don't we need the government to spend our way out of this" You asses blame and take potshots at Bush whenever possible. You don't appear to be a big believer in personal liberties and responsibility. You appear to think higher taxes are a good thing.

Brother, if that ain't a Liberal I don't know what is. Moderate ?? Not ONCE have I seen you do anything but go left of center on ANY issue.


RE: Why?
By Reclaimer77 on 1/31/2009 1:55:14 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Tom, I know your into the dem thing but lets be serious. Hes right, the tax cuts benefited everyone, not just the rich.


Tom is a lost cause.

Bush didn't just do tax cuts. He created, yes created, an entirely new tax bracket JUST for the middle class of America.


RE: Why?
By Spivonious on 1/30/2009 10:58:28 AM , Rating: 5
They pay more in, so why shouldn't they get more back? Targeted tax cuts are socialism, pure and simple.


RE: Why?
By zombiexl on 1/30/2009 11:46:17 AM , Rating: 2
I'm glad some people still get it..


RE: Why?
By StevoLincolnite on 1/30/09, Rating: -1
RE: Why?
By superflex on 1/30/2009 12:27:48 PM , Rating: 1
I love when non-Americans tell us how to run our economy.


RE: Why?
By MrBlastman on 1/30/2009 12:38:10 PM , Rating: 4
As long as he criticizes America, the great Australian internet filter will allow his comment to be posted. ;)

Nope, no extreme socialism there... none at all.


RE: Why?
By StevoLincolnite on 1/30/2009 11:04:10 PM , Rating: 2
The "Great Australian Internet Filter" will fail, It's simply a black list of banned websites, the ISP's appose it, the people oppose it, if the tests fail (Which should begin next week) then I doubt it's even going to become the norm.

When the Government was testing the filter the filter not only blocked legit government websites, but also slowed down the internet by 70 - 90% or more.

There is strong support for it be an opt-in or an opt-out choice rather than have it thrown down our necks, heck even the family party says it's only going to give parents a false sense of security which might even "Endanger" children more.

Plus, I was merely voicing my opinion on that last post, and obviously several people disagreed with it, doesn't bother me in the least to voted down to be honest.

Seriously though Dailytech should rename the voting system as "I Agree and I Disagree" and let it go from there.


RE: Why?
By Dreifort on 1/30/2009 1:11:35 PM , Rating: 2
Actually we have plenty of banks in the USA that still retain their good credit rating.

The problem is all these banks with good credit ratings are small town banks (some are in big towns, but have not expanded beyond their state). These small town banks refuse to give a $150k loan to any individual that walks in with a loan application stating they make $80K/yr (when they actually make $20k). These banks actually do background checks on applications and flag the loans that are falsified or where applicant may have low credit rating.

But then these banks are bought by bigger bangs, mostly due to big bank CEOs who see an untapped market in the bad-credit rated customers who were initially turned down for loans. It use to be (in during the Clinton and Bush administrations) that having "on paper" or "on the books" numerous loan qualifiers showed a large revenue stream for the bank. Never mind that over 40% of those loan recipients couldn't afford their payments or future balloon payments. The banks just wanted their books to look good. This made their loans look "valuable" and they were able to sell these loans to another company. It also made the banks stock price go up.

Thanks to lack of oversight by everyone in DC (on both sides), this action continued for over 15 yrs (goes back to Clinton pushing banks to initially give these loans). After Clinton's administration oversaw the banking system and pressured banks to give risky loans to lower-income individuals, the banks decided to turn that risk into a profitable scheme or legitimate transaction.

One way or the other, it got out of hand and risky loans to lower-income customers soon became valuable, as it looked good on the books to have their scheduled loan payments on the income sheet.

Clinton help start this mess, the banking/financial corporations mostly abused it and Bush's oversight let it get out of hand.

Bush may or may not have seen that these loans were bad for the future economy, as may have several other politicians. But the majority of liberals (and prob a small group of republicans with lobbyist to appease) refused to even discuss any type legislation that would stop the outpour of loans to lower-income citizens.

So, here we stand today.

Everyone deserves to be blamed. Clinton, Bush, dems, repubs and even Obama (yes, he was a senator that let this continue).

But anyone who tries to lay blame solely on Bush is just a servant to the liberal media carrying their torch of propaganda.


RE: Why?
By Keeir on 1/30/2009 2:13:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Unfortunately I'm a firm believer in Regulation, the "Free Market" as so many have called it has slipped and this is the result that we get, simply because people were to worried about making money instantly rather than being smart.


The problem is that Regulation can be good OR bad.

I prefer more decision makers than less... the results tend to be less catastrophic.


RE: Why?
By gstrickler on 1/30/2009 6:47:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sorry, but "Socialism" in small quantities isn't as bad as you think
You may be correct, but we already have too much socialism in the US, it's a large part of what is hurting our economy. Socialism (e.g. our Medicare, Social Security, Welfare, and other "entitlement" programs) is a huge part of our taxes already. Those are very poorly run programs that don't help very much. There are very few things that a government can/will do efficiently, social programs are not on that list.

When I want more socialism, I'll move to Minnesota (most socialist state in the US and home of the American Socialist Party), Canada, England (actually almost anywhere in Europe) or Australia. I don't want more socialism, I want less and I want it to be much more effective than it is.


RE: Why?
By PrinceGaz on 1/31/2009 9:16:58 PM , Rating: 1
There are no countries that are even remotely socialist here in Europe. The current US Medicare, Social Security/Welfare programmes are probably the worst thing about the country, after its foreign-policy for the last few years. Don't you care about people who live around you, or would you rather go back to the days where the lord of the manor might go out with his shotgun and shoot peasants who trespassed onto his land?

The NHS and DSS aren't perfect by any means, but here in the UK I think we've got the balance right between what you call "socialism" (actually just ensuring most people have a safety-net to fall on to help them back to being employed, and have decent health-care regardless of income level) and capitalism to maximise the economy. That we have those systems in place for those who need them makes us a more civilised caring country.

As for you, given what most Americans think socialism is, if I had to live there, I'd choose Minnesota. Provided they are also good on equality legislation.


RE: Why?
By PrinceGaz on 1/31/2009 9:22:52 PM , Rating: 2
I've just looked up Minnesota on a certain website and found this
quote:
The state is known for its moderate to liberal politics and social policies, its civic involvement, and high voter turnout. It ranks among the healthiest states, and has one of the most highly educated and literate populations.

I think that would tend to suggest that your idea of "socialism" (actually moderate liberal ideas) actually works quite well.


RE: Why?
By gstrickler on 2/1/2009 12:21:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think that would tend to suggest that your idea of "socialism" (actually moderate liberal ideas) actually works quite well.
It's not just my idea of socialism. From the page on Socialism on that same site:
quote:
Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, creates an unequal society and does not provide equal opportunities for everyone in society to attain such status. Therefore socialists advocate the creation of a society in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly based on merit or the amount of work expended, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.
From the page on Democratic Socialism on that same site:
quote:
For example, Robert M. Page, a Reader in Democratic Socialism and Social Policy at the University of Birmingham, writes about "transformative democratic socialism" to refer to the politics of the Clement Attlee government (a strong welfare state, fiscal redistribution, some nationalisation),...
Clement Attlee, is of course, the man who was leader of the UK Labour Party from 1935-1955 and your PM from 1945-1951. His government created you NHS, the National Insurance Act, and nationalized a number of your utilities and industries.

If you had bothered to look further down the page on Minnesota on that website, you would also have found:
quote:
Minnesota is ranked as the 6th highest in the nation for per capita total state taxes.
quote:
The per capita income in 2005 was $37,290, the tenth-highest in the nation...but among the population under age 18, more than 20% of Asians and Hispanics, more than 40% of African Americans and more than 40% of Native American girls in Minnesota lived in poverty.
quote:
...but about 6% of white, 28% of African American, 30% of Asian American and more than 34% of Hispanic and Native American students dropped out of school.
quote:
Minnesota's state budget is currently facing a $935 million deficit.
So they have to 6th highest per capita taxes on the 10th highest per capita income, and they still have huge percentages of minorities below poverty with high drop out rates, and still have a $935M budget deficit.

While there are certainly aspects of it that work, and most residents are interested in creating an egalitarian society (I have relatives in Minnesota, I have a pretty good feel for their politics), I would not say it "works quite well".


RE: Why?
By gstrickler on 2/1/2009 12:54:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
There are no countries that are even remotely socialist here in Europe.
First off, I never stated there were any pure/true socialist (i.e. Marxist) counties in Europe. What I did say is that most of Europe is more socialist than the US. See my response to your other post below for a definition of socialist as I'm using it.

By that definition, England, France, Belgium, Finland, Sweden, etc. are all more socialist than the US. If I wanted a more socialist country, I would move to one.

Just so we're clear, I'm not a pure capitalist either. Capitalism must be regulated to prevent greed and corruption from destroying it and turning into something resembling the "days of the Lord of the manor..." as you put it.

There are certain things that the government must do for the people. However, I do believe those should kept to a bare minimum, and that what can be handled effectively as individuals or as business should be left to individuals and businesses, with regulations and/or oversight as needed.

I care a great deal for the people around me. Having a "safety net to fall on to help them back to being employed" is a good thing, and for that we have unemployment benefits. I also think it's important that everyone have access to affordable basic health care, basic schooling, affordable basic housing, and affordable food and clothing. Of course, we could spend months or years arguing about what's affordable, what's basic, how much schooling, etc. However, for the person who doesn't have money and doesn't want to work to be able to afford access to those things, I have compassion, but little tolerance.

You seem to have some understanding of our welfare system, so you're probably aware that it's not an assistance program to help people get back on track, it's a system that sucks people in and keeps them there.

The only direct experience we have with government run health care is our Medicare/Medicaid system, not a great example, and it's only as good as it is because of the overall high quality of health care available (for money) in the US. Then we look at the delays and often lower quality care provided by the Canadian and UK systems, and while it might be less expensive (questionable) than what we have, it doesn't look like an improvement to most Americans. Of course, that's an outsider looking in and hearing tales of people being refused (timely) care and paying to come to the US for treatment.


RE: Why?
By Natfly on 1/30/2009 12:13:15 PM , Rating: 2
but but but.... it's patriotic to pay more taxes!


RE: Why?
By gstrickler on 1/30/2009 11:30:47 PM , Rating: 2
As a friend of mine put it, "It's the duty of every citizen to take every tax deduction legally possible, and keep that money out of the hands of the government."

I think our founding fathers would agree with that.


RE: Why?
By MrBungle123 on 1/31/2009 1:35:23 AM , Rating: 2
ah yes, the wise words of our illustrious vice president... *gag*


RE: Why?
By therealnickdanger on 1/30/2009 10:52:25 AM , Rating: 2
Tax breaks increase tax revenue and help EVERYONE keep more of their hard-earned money, that's why. What people do with that money is up to them - if they want to squander it on things they can't afford rather than invest it, that's not the problem of the wealthy.


RE: Why?
By Targon on 1/30/2009 11:32:12 AM , Rating: 2
You have it a little backwards, tax breaks reduce tax revenue, but at the same time stimulate spending(by making people have more money). The idea of this is that this increased consumer spending will more than offset the losses from reduced taxes.

Now, tax breaks can be done in intelligent as well as stupid ways. For example, if a new tax break on corporations does not target things like payroll for people in the USA, it will give breaks to the businesses that are outsourcing their jobs to other countries. The same can be said for other areas of the tax code, where certain tax breaks apply even if the money goes out of the country to benefit foreign businesses.

Remember, the idea of tax breaks helping the economy isn't to help people keep more of their hard earned money, it is to give them more money to spend. You may have had that in mind, but when it comes to the economy, it helps to spell it out.


RE: Why?
By zombiexl on 1/30/2009 11:42:39 AM , Rating: 3
Actually statistics show that tax rate cuts to increase tax revenue. People invest more and comapnies do better, wages increase, jobs are created. This creates a larger pool of money.

Think of it this way.. Would you rather tax 1/3 of a dollar from each of 20 people or 1/4 of a dollar from each of 30 people?


RE: Why?
By TomZ on 1/30/09, Rating: 0
RE: Why?
By therealnickdanger on 1/30/2009 12:21:07 PM , Rating: 2
Who needs statistics when you can have hard facts:
http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/...


RE: Why?
By zombiexl on 1/30/2009 12:24:41 PM , Rating: 2
thanks for doing the footwork for me. I would have just posted examples until he gave up. :)


RE: Why?
By TomZ on 1/30/2009 12:32:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Who needs statistics when you can have hard facts
Did you read the article you linked? It doesn't conclude that total tax revenue increased; instead, it says that the amount of and share of tax paid by the wealthy increased. That doesn't address the question of overall tax revenue.

And again, as I point out, tax cuts have only limited reach in terms of stimulating economic activity. The Bush tax cuts - still in place now - don't seem to have any kind of mitigating effect in the current environment.


RE: Why?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 1/30/2009 2:14:26 PM , Rating: 2
I think the more interesting question is when those tax cuts bush put into effect expire and are not renewed, will the situation get worse?


RE: Why?
By zombiexl on 1/30/2009 2:15:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Bush tax cuts - still in place now - don't seem to have any kind of mitigating effect in the current environment.


I agree, they should be cut further. We can try that or spend another trillion (mostly on pork) that we dont have that even some Democrats admit wont help the economy.


RE: Why?
By therealnickdanger on 1/30/2009 2:33:13 PM , Rating: 2
Did you read it?

10th paragraph:

quote:
individual income tax revenues rose from $244 billion in 1980 to $446 billion in 1989


RE: Why?
By Keeir on 1/30/2009 5:05:51 PM , Rating: 2
Not to quibble... but that source does not indicate whether those are equal year dollars.

Assuming a 5% inflation rate from 1980 to 1989 predicts 1989 value in 1980 dollars of 273.8 billion, an increase still but not anywhere near as dramatic

As a side note, the concept of the "Laffer Curve" is essentially economic fact. The only arguement can be where we currently exist of the Laffer Curve. I personally think that since the US government is and has been running a deficient budget, this makes using the statistics to determine where we are on the Laffer Curve difficult. If the US "borrows" 100 million and uses it on projects, tax revenue will likely increase by 20 million.


RE: Why?
By zombiexl on 1/30/2009 12:22:16 PM , Rating: 2
Overspending by congress doesnt help. You are correct. Honestly I think the republicans were so happy to have control after 40 years that they lost their way.

Well one example was the cut on capital gains taxes. When they were cut the fed brought between 2 and 3x as much revenue as they were expecting before the cuts.

Although if you feel like it you could always send the IRS extra money and tell them its a gift becuase you didnt pay enough. Personally I think people usually will do better with the money they earn than the government will with the money they take.


RE: Why?
By Curelom on 1/30/2009 11:08:41 AM , Rating: 2
So you would rather have them spend the money on the liberal's pet projects rather than distributing them to the people in the more fair manner of giving the people back their own money? I really find that hard to swallow that you see this as fair and beneficial, so I don't think you care about that, but rather want us funding condoms in Timbuktu.


RE: Why?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/30/2009 10:46:23 AM , Rating: 2
"I'll have what she's having"


RE: Why?
By chrnochime on 1/30/2009 10:46:32 AM , Rating: 2
"...will have a second chance..."? Sounds like they are doing House a big favor here so they'd better pass it this time. Doesn't sound like they're asking House to cooperate.


RE: Why?
By monitorjbl on 1/30/2009 10:46:42 AM , Rating: 1
Enough of their constituents feel they are legally entitled to entertainment, that's why.


RE: Why?
By acase on 1/30/2009 10:51:09 AM , Rating: 2
*face in palm*

...I give up


RE: Why?
By TomZ on 1/30/2009 10:53:00 AM , Rating: 3
It amazes me the voracity of the opinions here on DT when there is any talk of delaying the transition. No sympathy at all for the braying masses!


RE: Why?
By waykizool on 1/30/2009 11:02:16 AM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't call 6.5 million out of 300 million "masses." I think what we all are saying here is if the last two years of radio and TV ads for the conversion haven't told you it's coming, oh well... logic clearly dictates that the needs (or wants in this case) of the many outweigh the needs of the few.


RE: Why?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 1/30/2009 11:06:33 AM , Rating: 2
I think were up to about 303 million at last check.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world...


RE: Why?
By theapparition on 1/30/2009 11:53:11 AM , Rating: 2
Let's also keep in mind that the 6.5 million number is Nielson's old estimate. They've stated that that number could drop signifigantly.

Not included in the Nielson's estimate are people who will purchase converter boxes in the final 2 months (yes, thier estimate is from December), plus unclaimed coupon usage.

Funny how everyone latches on to that 6.5 million number, while in reality, by Nielson's own admission, could probably be half of that by Feb 17th.


RE: Why?
By TomZ on 1/30/2009 12:01:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I wouldn't call 6.5 million out of 300 million "masses."
You have a "units of measure" problem there - the 6.5M number is number of families, whereas the 300M number is number of individuals.

If you use the correct units, it works out to around 6% of the US population being unprepared.


RE: Why?
By waykizool on 1/30/2009 12:17:47 PM , Rating: 2
OK, I'll give you that "unit of measure". Is it still ok to annoy 94% by delaying something we have all preped for?


RE: Why?
By TomZ on 1/30/2009 12:36:44 PM , Rating: 2
How does it annoy or inconvenience the 94%? For those who are ready-to-go, they'll not notice any difference, right? They can continue to enjoy their DTV as they can now.

And another point I'd like to make, is that out of the 94%, there is a very large portion of that who have cable or satellite TV, and so they didn't have to do anything for the transition. If the transition required action by 100% of US households, you can be DAMN SURE the figure would be much higher than 6%.


RE: Why?
By rcc on 1/30/2009 1:36:26 PM , Rating: 2
Well, it annoys the cr*( out of me any time someone, or some entity, says we are going to do xyz by such and such a date, and they don't. So, there's the simple answer to your question. I don't claim to speak for the rest of the 94% though.

There needs to be a better reason to miss a deadline than, xx number of people were too lazy to get something done.


RE: Why?
By monitorjbl on 1/30/2009 2:20:06 PM , Rating: 2
Plenty of companies are itching to grab a slice of the bandwidth the DTV switch will free up.


RE: Why?
By Dreifort on 1/30/2009 2:51:07 PM , Rating: 2
Clear.


RE: Why?
By Keeir on 1/30/2009 2:24:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How does it annoy or inconvenience the 94%? For those who are ready-to-go, they'll not notice any difference, right? They can continue to enjoy their DTV as they can now.


#1. Not all stations have switched yet as broadcasting in both digital and analoge is expensive.

#2. Many stations are not broadcasting at full power

#3. Many stations are currently broadcasting the digital signals at higher frequencies (Since Digital Stations can do Logical Channels, Channel 13 is Channel 13 even if its broadcast on spectrum number 40, but analoge does not have this feature). This typically results in less range. I know I am personally trying to decide if the antennae I have now are adequate. I won't really know until ALL the stations in my area start broadcasting on their final spectrum positions.

#4. 6 months months of Annoying Commericals from Comcast, news stories, and screen scrolls... Even worse than 6 more weeks of winter

Other point

More than 40 million US households use OTA tranmissions as either primary or secondary sources of television. Even using this number, the value is 15% unprepared as of December 2008 and 85% prepared. Today, it is probably closer to 90% prepared and 10% unprepared. Seems pretty good to me.


RE: Why?
By Kenenniah on 1/30/2009 2:28:07 PM , Rating: 2
How does it annoy? Maybe not the full 94%, but how about anyone who has stock in or works for any of the companies that will spend extra money to keep their analog signals going. Or how about the employees and stock holders of the communications companies that paid millions for the spectrums under the assumption the transition would be done on time. Whether they are actually ready or not to use those spectrums isn't important. If you were to purchase something after being told it would be available at a certain date, then just before that date arrives you are told you have to wait 4 more months, wouldn't you be upset?


RE: Why?
By Veerappan on 1/30/2009 3:30:12 PM , Rating: 2
As other have stated, I'm sick of seeing all of the commercials which warn me that on February 17 my TV will not work if I don't have a converter box. I've got cable and won't be affected, but I won't look forward to another 5 months of commercials warning me about the DTV switch after which there will still be 4 million households which aren't yet prepared, and congress decides to try to delay again.

From the beginning it was stated in all the advertisements/notices that I saw that the coupon program had limited funds and that you should sign up early, or you might not get one because they might run out of cash. Anyone who wanted one of these coupons has had a very long time to sign up, and if they waited until last month to try to get it, that's their own fault. I don't see why I should be forced to subsidize their laziness through tax money I've had taken from me for supposedly useful purposes.

I paid a lot of money for my HDTV and I did it without one of the coupons. I'm sure plenty of other people can manage to do it as well, especially since they just need a converter box, and not a new TV.


RE: Why?
By PrinceGaz on 1/31/2009 9:05:26 PM , Rating: 2
Why did the coupon program have limited-funds? They should have budgeted for every household eligible to be able to receive one so that there would be no waiting lists like there is now when funds have "run out".

Obviously funds aren't unlimited, but costs could have been managed by means-testing coupon availability and only sent them out to everyone eligible last year, so they could have bought their DTV box well in advance. The coupon could come with instructions for what to do if you are unable to go to a store in person to redeem it, allowing for a STB to be delivered as part of the coupon's price.

I don't know what the cut-off level was, but providing what, 20%(?) of US households with coupons that cost less than US$30 in total is hardly going to break the bank. Not compared with the billions wasted on the military, anyway.


RE: Why?
By MrBungle123 on 1/30/2009 6:00:57 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
It amazes me the voracity of the opinions here on DT when there is any talk of delaying the transition. No sympathy at all for the braying masses!


Oh we have plenty of sympathy for people that get caught by circumstances outside of their control or people that fall victim to in justices. But in this case those pushing for the delay seem only to be coddling the stupid which one can only take so much of.


RE: Why?
By chmilz on 1/30/2009 11:03:57 AM , Rating: 5
Coincidentally, there's about 6.5 million Americans that reply "Jello?" if you ask them what 2+2 equals.


RE: Why?
By Jimspar on 1/31/2009 5:58:51 PM , Rating: 2
LMAO.


RE: Why?
By Spectator on 1/30/2009 1:18:21 PM , Rating: 2
The more Synical could say.

That spectrum will be sold off to highest bidder.

You want to sell it now in the current climate? or wait a year or 2 and make a shat load more money?

you know it makes sence :P


RE: Why?
By Veerappan on 1/30/2009 3:32:59 PM , Rating: 2
If I'm not mistaken, this spectrum has ALREADY been sold (to Sprint I think). The buyer was expecting this spectrum to be available for their use starting after the DTV transition which was scheduled for Feb 17. I have no idea if they're ready to release products to utilize this spectrum, but if they are, this proposed delay could cost them a significant amount of money.


RE: Why?
By bodar on 1/30/2009 9:18:57 PM , Rating: 2
I like the way you think. I'll guard the door like a goalie and just kick em back into play for you.


This is such BS
By PAPutzback on 1/30/2009 10:53:16 AM , Rating: 2
I doubt there is one guy in the senate that uses rabbit ears or has a clue what the difference is between DTV and HDTV. I think these imbeciles think there are six million people with out a HDTV. I haven't seen one poll where anyone went door to door and asked how people were connected. Where do they get these numbers. Freakin idiots.




RE: This is such BS
By Athena on 1/30/2009 11:23:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Where do they get these numbers.
Probably from tests similar to those run in Houston where stations instructed people to call in if their picture disappeared during an on-air test of digital-only broadcasting.

FWIW, Houston is the 10th largest television market in the country and the broadcasters were genuinely surprised at the volume of calls they received during the tests. To give them credit, that sparked a local campaign to get everyone up to speed with converters.

Technology oriented viewers may have been aware of the change for years but until relatively recently, the information was not intelligible to the user segments under discussion. What I don't get is why people here are so hot and bothered by the prospect of delay. I personally don't care either way, how would a delay hurt consumers?


RE: This is such BS
By MrBlastman on 1/30/2009 11:43:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What I don't get is why people here are so hot and bothered by the prospect of delay.


Simple. We like our technology, and we want it now. ;)


RE: This is such BS
By MrBungle123 on 1/30/2009 11:57:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What I don't get is why people here are so hot and bothered by the prospect of delay.


because it's political pandering to the lazy, so that the ignorant can think that the politicians "care" about the "little guy".


RE: This is such BS
By HrilL on 1/30/2009 11:58:51 AM , Rating: 4
It hurts us because the companies that bought the spectrum can't use it until the new dates. I'm also mad that my tax money is being used so some poor person can watch TV.
They don't need TV. They need to read a book and get a damn education so they'll be able to get a better paying job. Let us also not forget the plain out right lazy people that live off of the average American. I'm plain out sick of it. If you can’t prove you are disabled or unable to work. Then you should get nothing. Bring back pre FDR government. Our country would be better for it. In the short term the price of labor would drop quite a bit and that would make us in turn a lot more competitive on the world stage thus giving more companies less incentive to outsource which in turn would make our economy stronger. TV is not a right. It is a privilege and if you're left without it then it is probably for the better. These people will find something else to do with their time and it will most likely be a lot more useful than watching TV. The little over a billion they are spending so people can watch TV could have been better spent on education or improving infrastructure or not spent at all since it is money we don’t have in the first place.


RE: This is such BS
By TomZ on 1/30/2009 12:17:44 PM , Rating: 1
First, show me where you learned that the 6% of Americans that are not ready for the DTV transition are dumb, lazy, and/or uneducated? That's an idiotic assumption on your part.

Second, why do you assume that your tax money is being used to subsidize the DTV converter boxes? In reality, the government is also taking in a very large chunk of change to relicense the spectrum. And furthermore, the government is asking consumers to spend their own time & money to help facilitate that. I think that a $40 DTV coupon is reasonable compensation for their trouble. So really it is not as unreasonable a situation as your characterize it to be.

Third, I don't think you have to fret over large corporate interests in Washington. Their wants and needs are very well voiced. The needs of the rest of us, however, are not represented by such a powerful lobbying effort, now are they?


RE: This is such BS
By superflex on 1/30/2009 12:36:29 PM , Rating: 2
I love when people use the argument that the govt got millions of dollars from the sale of the spectrum, so they hold their hands out like they are due something.

Maybe, we should use some of this money to pay down our national debt.

Nevermind, that would be socially responsible.


RE: This is such BS
By TomZ on 1/30/2009 12:38:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
millions
LOL, try BILLIONS!


RE: This is such BS
By superflex on 1/30/2009 2:42:13 PM , Rating: 2
Hands open wider?


RE: This is such BS
By rcc on 1/30/2009 1:40:39 PM , Rating: 2
I haven't been able to confirm it yet, but I understand that Qualcomm is projecting a $500 million loss of revenue because of the delay in taking over the part of the spectrum they bought into.


What a nice looking coupon..
By rubyxc7 on 1/30/2009 11:22:33 AM , Rating: 2
Could we make coupons out of normal paper and black and white ink? Why does this particular coupon have to look like a fancy credit card?




RE: What a nice looking coupon..
By kattanna on 1/30/2009 11:32:46 AM , Rating: 2
because the people who make the actual CC plastic blanks needed a bailout too

;>)


RE: What a nice looking coupon..
By zombiexl on 1/30/2009 11:51:32 AM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure its so it couldnt be copied as easy. Not that I agree with it, just thats the only thing i can guess.


RE: What a nice looking coupon..
By KITH on 1/30/2009 3:02:00 PM , Rating: 2
Because it has a magnetic stripe on it. Just like a credit card.


Where are they getting the numbers?
By eetnoyer on 1/30/2009 12:19:56 PM , Rating: 2
Last I checked, Nielsen could only determine viewership for cable subscriptions. Maybe those 6.5 million households without the necessary converter box actually includes 5 million households that don't even have a TV. I personally know a few people that don't.




By omnicronx on 1/30/2009 12:36:49 PM , Rating: 2
Untrue, although I live in Canada, I take part in Nelson ratings and have a box setup on my TV without cable. Nelson ratings are not just for TV, they monitor everything you are doing, including watching DVDs and playing games, although the only data retrieved is that you are not watching TV. This helps them know that you are still at home, but not watching TV which is a stat in itself. As for OTA viewing, I am not sure how it is done, but they opened up my TV and have cables running into it.

The only problem I see here is this is based on a small pool of people, maybe 25k out of the apparent 6.5 million, it makes you wonder how accurate the stat really is.


By omnicronx on 1/30/2009 12:41:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Maybe those 6.5 million households without the necessary converter box actually includes 5 million households that don't even have a TV. I personally know a few people that don't.
Its statistics, they have a certain amount of houses they monitor per area. If 10 out of 100 houses they monitor have OTA, they can assume that 10% of the people in the area use OTA analogue.(of course this is an over generalization). From that they can figure out of those people, how many are DTV ready, how many are not.

The 6.5 Million figure does sound high though.


Channels
By Spectator on 1/30/2009 1:28:49 PM , Rating: 2
Why dont they just change to digital.

And have a period where all the analog signals just stream change to digital now adverts.

How hard can it be in reality?




RE: Channels
By Dreifort on 1/30/2009 2:54:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How hard can it be in reality?


This your first experience with American politics?


RE: Channels
By nixoofta on 1/30/2009 7:37:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This your first experience with American politics?


Reply: "Aw, hell no! I been readin' Dailytech for weeks now!"


Ummmm..... denied !!
By Tegrat on 1/30/2009 10:50:47 AM , Rating: 2
You've had long enough to make this transition. Get some motivation and stop waiting for the last minute to do your homework... It's due tomorrow!




RE: Ummmm..... denied !!
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 1/30/2009 10:54:06 AM , Rating: 2
But if your congress you can simply change the due date on that homework, thus providing you the unique opportunity to never do it and get away with it.


There should be no delay
By chriscollins on 1/30/2009 12:19:42 PM , Rating: 2
Look at it this way. I work in the broadcast industry (radio). We are very friendly with the TV stations in our market. All but two are broadcasting a digital signal right now. The larger ones have already commited resources to changing over on the original deadline. They have hired tower crews, etc... On the day of the deadline, they will cut off the analog and move the digital signal to full power. If they change the deadline, these stations are NOT changing their plans. Here is where real confusion comes in. They will change. The other two will have 4 more months to wait. Now, the older person who hooks up the box as the only way to get CBS & Fox, can no longer get NBC, because the NBC affiliate waited. You think a 70 year old is going to buy splitters and wire the tv to get digital and analog? Not going to happen. So, delaying will make more problems than sticking with the deadline.




RE: There should be no delay
By mindless1 on 1/31/2009 7:06:23 PM , Rating: 2
Actually it's a rather trivial thing to have both digital and analog, since most TVs have multiple inputs so all they have to do is press that input button on the remote after installing the converter box as they normally would've.

On the other hand, they'll not need months to figure this out, they'd just need the box already.


Crisis
By HotFoot on 1/30/2009 2:57:11 PM , Rating: 2
In such times, how is it that the leaders of the country are still talking about this issue? Aren't you fighting in two wars and facing a massive economic problem? Wouldn't this time be better spent ensuring that $800 billion isn't squandered uselessly but actually gets used in the best of ways?

Naw... gotta make sure people don't have to resort to reading the newspaper or listening to the raidio for a short while for that portion of people who are so detached from the world around them already they didn't see something that's been coming for YEARS.




RE: Crisis
By oxymojoe on 1/30/2009 3:14:54 PM , Rating: 2
Well unfortunately there are Americans that cannot read, wouldn't if they could, and around 25% that do not have a computer. That adds up to a guesstimate of at least 80 million people that get the news solely from T.V. The actual number is probably much higher.

The President must delay the DTV switch for a good number of reasons, but mostly because:

1. He will be blamed for people NOT being able to watch TV. It won't matter who's fault it really is.

2. His constituency must stay informed via a left-leaning, favorable news media. The rumor mill can spread like wildfire, and Brian William, Catie Couric, The View etc. will help keep his propaganda machine running smoothly.


Here's a joke
By clovell on 1/30/2009 3:06:31 PM , Rating: 2
Here's a joke - we're in the midst of a global recession, and our lawmakers are busy worrying about the DTV switch. That we even call these numbskulls who haven't gotten the message via newspaper,internet, mail, and *gasp* TV 'constituents' or 'electorate' is a joke. These people have assumed no stake in this country or its democracy.




RE: Here's a joke
By Josh7289 on 1/31/2009 4:45:26 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, this is such a stupid bill to be wasting time on.

Even if the switch is delayed, people will still procrastinate until the very last moment, and after all these messages and notifications about the switch, it's entirely their own fault if they don't upgrade their hardware in time (save for the very very poor).

So, House, vote the bill down one more time so we never see it again.


Disappointing
By toslat on 1/31/2009 1:45:58 AM , Rating: 2
Firstly, the idea of coupons for the converter boxes was the wrong idea for an ailing economy. The coupon value basically fixes a minimum price of the converter boxes - nobody will be inclined to sell below that value. If left to market forces, I feel the boxes would be much cheaper.

A simple four phase transition program (with no general populace coupon) would have been effective e.g. optional DTV + mandatory analog transmission --> mandatory DTV + mandatory analog transmission --> mandatory DTV + optional analog transmission --> DTV transmission.

The government does not buy TVs for people, I don't see why they need to help them acquire converter boxes. I am fine with coupons/tax rebate being available to low income earners.

No matter how much delay or coupons they offer, they will never get 100% migration. Anybody that is not ready by February most likely didn't feel TV was critical. It would have been wiser to find ways to deal with the laggards after the transition, and not delay the rest of the country.

Its disappointing to hear that the senate are spending tax payers money wasting so much time on this issue.




RE: Disappointing
By gstrickler on 1/31/2009 6:37:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Firstly, the idea of coupons for the converter boxes was the wrong idea for an ailing economy.
The economy was in a very different state years ago when the converter box program was created as part of the agreement with the TV broadcasters and the bidders for the 700MHz spectrum that will be freed.

Secondly, it is a contractual agreement to which the congress, the FCC, the broadcasters, the TV manufacturers, and the bidders all agreed. The broadcasters agreed to pay for all the new transmission equipment and for the costs of broadcasting both analog and digital for a time, in exchange, they would get temporary use of a second frequency for the digital broadcast. The TV manufacturers agreed to include digital tuners (expensive to make at the time) in their new sets, in exchange both of the above groups wanted discounted converters available to consumers so they don't have 15-30 million customers screaming that their old TV don't work any more. Without that agreement, the TV manufacturers and broadcasters would have used their influence to delay this transition for many years.

The bidders agreed to minimum qualifying bids in the billions of dollars for each block being auctioned.

In return for those agreements, the FCC and congress agreed to offer up to 1.34B USD for the converter box coupon program. The US Govt got over $19B in the auction and only has to spend $1.35B on coupons. In short, everyone involved had to pay lots of money for the conversion, except the US Govt, who brought in billions (about $18B net) of new revenue. Anyone still want to complain that the Govt shouldn't be subsidizing the converters?

It was an agreement. Feb 17, 2009 is the date agreed to. Stick to it.

quote:
The coupon value basically fixes a minimum price of the converter boxes - nobody will be inclined to sell below that value.
Agreed. That's another reason NOT to issue more coupons or delay the switchover. Right now, the cheapest converter I've seen is $50 before the $40 coupon. When the coupons are gone and the switch is made, I expect prices to fall by $15-$20 fairly quickly. I could be wrong, but I do think the coupons are artificially inflating the price of the converters.


email your Representative
By billg1745 on 1/30/2009 11:53:36 AM , Rating: 2
The only hope of stopping this nonsense is for enough people to call or email or Representatives. Do it now!!!




Let the madness end!!
By blueboy09 on 2/2/2009 1:17:55 PM , Rating: 2
Enough already! Its about time we Americans take charge and see reality as it is: Pass the digital transition. If we continue to procrastinate, and keep the delay, we will continue to waste our own taxpayer's money. Let the madness end already, and I know that i'm not the only one who agrees with this.




"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki