News & Politics - Subsidized television? No joke!

mh67511 · 04-25-2005, 01:13 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7593620/

I've just put some clips from the article as it spans a few pages

Quote:

Depending on the outcome of discussions in Congress, television as we know it may end at exactly midnight Dec. 31, 2006.

That’s the date Congress targeted, a decade ago, for the end of analog television broadcasting and a full cutover to a digital format. If enforced, that means that overnight, somewhere around 70 million television sets now connected to rabbit ears or roof-top antennas will suddenly and forever go blank, unless their owners purchase a special converter box. Back when the legislation was written, New Year’s Eve 2006 probably looked as safely distant as the dark side of the moon. But now that date is right around the corner and Congress and the FCC are struggling mightily to figure out what to do.

Quote:

One drawback to the U.S. version of HDTV was that to make it work, all broadcast television (not just high-definition) would have to convert to digital, meaning that every American television set manufactured since 1946 would be rendered obsolete. To ease the transition, Congress generously gave all television broadcasters additional channel space so that they could keep broadcasting their analog signals while they installed and launched their digital channels. The deal was that they would give up their old channels when the transition was done. That part worked: Over 1400 broadcasters now transmit in digital as well as analog, reaching 99 percent of the U.S. television market.

During the same period consumers were supposed to buy digital television receivers. That part didn't work.

Quote:

The really big question: What will happen to all those old-fashioned television sets we’re still buying when the analog transmitters go off the air? To continue to receive free broadcast television via antenna, you’ll have to buy a digital converter box; cost estimates range from $100 or so in 2006 down to $50 by 2008. (Those converters won’t turn older sets into fancy high-definition sets; they will only restore conventional TV service, in digital format. The picture quality will be fairly comparable to today’s analog version, although there will be some improvements for people who use antennas — no “snow” or “ghosting.” On the other hand, when digital signals are weak, there is often no picture at all.)

Many analog television owners won’t need a converter: 85 percent of Americans now get all their television from cable or satellite providers, so for the most part the change-over won’t affect them. (A lot of those households, however, also have second and third sets in basements or bedrooms that do rely on over-the-air signals.) The real problem is the 15 million or so U.S. households whose only television service comes over the air. For these people, predominately lower-income and disproportionately black and Hispanic, the cut-off will be bad news indeed.

Most discussions in Washington contemplate some sort of free or subsidized converters for low-income households, paid for by the government, perhaps with the help of broadcasters or consumer electronics manufacturers. Estimates for the costs of that subsidy range from under one to several billion dollars — the cost declining as the cut-off date is moved further into the future. Proponents argue that the cost of the subsidy is small compared to the economic benefits, although last year the Bush administration indicated it was not in favor of subsidized converters.

Wow, I never knew that TV was THAT important! Don't you love how the electronics companies will make out like bandits? Either buy a new TV or spend $100 to get a converter, which, no doubt, will be made by these same electronics companies. I wish our Congress would grow a backbone and stop letting corporate America dictacte legislation!

The day our government spends billions of dollars so that people can sit on their @$$ watching TV....well that is going to be quite a day.

The U.S. Motto: We can't give everyone health insurance, but we'll damned before we let our citizens live without a TV!

JW77 · 04-25-2005, 03:59 PM

Subsidies can be good at times, but when you have to subsidize every single business sector in the US (most of the time), that's probably not a good sign.

Besides, our economy isn't the best that it could be at the moment anyway. And personally, I don't believe putting more money into each sector is going to make that much of a difference. Put the money into health care or other things that will improve the lives of every American. Maybe that'll make a difference.

Milt Palacio · 04-25-2005, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JW77

Put the money into health care or other things that will improve the lives of every American.

You'd have to vote Democrat for something like that to happen. Republican politicians couldn't care less about improving people's lives.

Galaxia21 · 04-29-2005, 10:36 PM

Why don't they just undo or rewrite that bit of legislation? I mean big freaking deal. Some people use HDTV some don't. It doesn't matter and eventually everyone will all switch over but not this soon and not all right when someone else wants us too. So just forget this. Shouldn't they be worrying about more important things?!

JW77 · 04-30-2005, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Milt Palacio

You'd have to vote Democrat for something like that to happen. Republican politicians couldn't care less about improving people's lives.

I believe that members in both parties are capable of good and bad. And that's why, even though I believe in most of the founding principles of the Republican party, I will vote based on my opinion of the actions of each individual person...and not their party affiliation.

Party politics just seem to get in the way of what really matters most of the time.

Milt Palacio · 05-01-2005, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JW77

I believe that members in both parties are capable of good and bad.

I agree. It's just that with Republicans, it's 80% bad and 20% good and with Democrats it's 80% good and only 20% bad.

AlexEvans · 05-01-2005, 08:43 PM

What are the plans for the regular channel airwaves? If none, then just put the legislation on hold. If it's something important, this makes sense.

Remember, television is cheap - cheaper by far than going to or even renting movies, cheaper than buying books, when you factor in transportation and late fines it may well be cheaper than using the library. It's a source of entertainment (as well as weather, perhaps news, and other information) even for people who don't have a lot of other sources.

I don't know if it should be subsidized (well, the one-time transition) - but that's a much better idea than annually taxing televisions, as the UK for example does. (To add additional injury to injury, that tax is partly or wholly dedicated to the BBC.)

**Avatar** · 05-01-2005, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexEvans

I don't know if it should be subsidized (well, the one-time transition) - but that's a much better idea than annually taxing televisions, as the UK for example does. (To add additional injury to injury, that tax is partly or wholly dedicated to the BBC.)

It's the same over here... we have to pay an annual tax which goes into stately owned NRK - in turn, they have no commercials (same as the BBC). I don't pay it with a lot of joy, but it does give them the opportunity to take into account more than what would generate revenue, and that, at least, is a good thing. You could say a lot of things about Auntie Beeb, but at least it isn't irrelevant.

WalkingOnSunshine · 05-01-2005, 10:46 PM

(from article)

Quote:

To ease the transition, Congress generously gave all television broadcasters additional channel space so that they could keep broadcasting their analog signals while they installed and launched their digital channels. The deal was that they would give up their old channels when the transition was done. That part worked: Over 1400 broadcasters now transmit in digital as well as analog, reaching 99 percent of the U.S. television market.

I have HDTV now and still get the channels (that are available in HD) in regular format too. It is amazing difference though between the two. Especially in regards to sports, once you watch a game in HD you will not want to go back to regular TV.

(from article)

Quote:

But Congress needs to do something nonetheless. For starters, there’s the remarkable fact that Americans are still buying over 20 million analog sets each year, all of which could be obsolete rather quickly. If Detroit was selling cars that used a type of gasoline that would soon no longer be available, consumers would expect to be informed. Thus analog sets clearly need some kind of warning label, and proponents of a “date certain” say this will make the labels far more meaningful: i.e., “This television will no longer receive over-the-air signals after December 31, 2006.”

I agree that people need to be informed about the changes that are going to/will be made. When we bought a new TV a few months ago, the people at Circuit City explained everything about the different systems and upcoming changes. It was interesting to learn about.

(from article)

Quote:

In addition, both Silicon Valley and your local police force are lobbying for an early analog cut-off. The reason is simple: when the cut-off happens, TV channels 52 – 69 will no longer be needed, freeing up broadcasting spectrum for other purposes. Public safety workers have been promised four of these channels — a commitment even more pressing in the wake of the 9/11 Commission’s finding that the nation’s first responder communications systems need a major upgrade.

That is a good reason for many to want the switch over to happen soon.

(from article)

Quote:

And finally, there’s a bonus for the U.S. Treasury as well—much of the new spectrum will be auctioned off to the highest bidders, raising billions of dollars.

Another good incentive I think.

In regards to the proposal of subsidied converters well I don't know really. I can't say I see the harm in it. If it is possible to recover the estimate of "under one to several billion dollars" by being able to use the "billions of dollars" raised by the future auctioning off of unused channels.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Milt Palacio

I agree. It's just that with Republicans, it's 80% bad and 20% good and with Democrats it's 80% good and only 20% bad.

Oh please.

AlexEvans · 05-02-2005, 03:39 PM

Avatar, it's interesting to know that other countries do the same thing. In Canada, the CBC is subsidized out of general tax revenues. *sigh* Still don't like paying for it... but at least it has sports, and Doctor Who.

Walking on Sunshine, thanks for the info on what the channels will be used for. I find those quite compelling reasons for the changeover!

**GrhmLz** · 05-06-2005, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mh67511

The U.S. Motto: We can't give everyone health insurance, but we'll damned before we let our citizens live without a TV!

Yeah, that'll be the day. When ridiculous ideas like providing everyone with a T.V come up, I can't help but ask myself "what is this really about"? Since the Entactment of the Patriot Act, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if "Big Brother" is planning to bug everyone's house via the good 'Ole T.V.

After all, Privacy anyone? Not in this country anymore. Serve it up with a good ole dish of paranoia!

AlexEvans · 05-06-2005, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrhmLz

Yeah, that'll be the day. When ridiculous ideas like providing everyone with a T.V come up, I can't help but ask myself "what is this really about"? Since the Entactment of the Patriot Act, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if "Big Brother" is planning to bug everyone's house via the good 'Ole T.V.

After all, Privacy anyone? Not in this country anymore. Serve it up with a good ole dish of paranoia!

Umm... providing everyone with a TV? It's about making sure everyone who currently has a TV can keep using it. I think your assessment of the Patriot Act is similarly overstated.

**GrhmLz** · 05-06-2005, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexEvans

Umm... providing everyone with a TV? It's about making sure everyone who currently has a TV can keep using it. I think your assessment of the Patriot Act is similarly overstated

Well, actually I was cracking a joke but I guess my sense of humor was lost on you!

Yeah, in order for people to keep using the televisions that they have, in particular lower-income individuals that can't afford to replace their television sets, they would need to have access to the digital box in order to pick up the signal so that use of their televisions does not become obsolete. I am assuming, and don't quote me on this as fact, that access to these boxes would be subsidized by the government for lower-income families.

As for the Patriot Act, I will simply state without getting into a huge debate, that I don't believe that I am overstating anything at all. At least not according to my own personal reading regarding the Act itself and the real intentions that i have come to the conclusion lie behind it.

AlexEvans · 05-06-2005, 07:52 PM

I don't suppose you could point to any specific provisions that you find so troubling? (Seriously... if you've read the act itself, and are upset about particular items, I'd be quite interested. It's hard finding anyone who's read it, I haven't either although I do have a copy sitting on my desk.)

**GrhmLz** · 05-06-2005, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexEvans

I don't suppose you could point to any specific provisions that you find so troubling? (Seriously... if you've read the act itself, and are upset about particular items, I'd be quite interested. It's hard finding anyone who's read it, I haven't either although I do have a copy sitting on my desk.)

Well, then I guess it isn't really necessary for me to detail the Act for you since you have a copy sitting right on your desk. You can read it and discern for yourself what you find right or wrong about it. However, I must say that i find it rather interesting that someone would have gone to all the trouble by taking the time to secure a copy of the Act only to leave it on their desk unread. Hmmm....

As I stated earlier, I'm not going to get into a big debate about it on this thread. It is not the place for it anyway. But I will simply state this for you. I had the fortunate experience of attending a ACLU group meeting at my University a year ago. Therefore, I discovered that most of the hundreds of pages are just a bunch of fluff meant to discourage any potential reader. There are only about 25 pages that are relevant and to the point of what the act is about. The rest is just repetitive jargon.

I have also read other books or articles that have lead me to my conclusions. The Act attacks the fundamental principals of the United States Constitution by instilling the fear of "safety" in everyone's minds. Just to sum it up for you, the breakdown of due process and the attack on constitutionally protected rights, all in the name of "war on terrorism", bothers me. The Act gives more "police powers" to government entites while "stripping" the average citizen of their rights. That is dangerous and goes against the founding principals of our nation. I can't help but think back to the Declaration of Independence that states this was suppose to be a government "For the people and BY the people." Never was it intended to be a government OVER the people. That is why the Declaration stated that the people should overthrow any attempts of a government attempting to abuse this power over the people.


Fan Forum > General Discussion > News & Politics > Subsidized television? No joke!