NationStates Jolt Archive


Digital TV -- Another Handout...

Myrmidonisia
28-12-2007, 15:10
Yes, our Congress is going to allow the complete change-over to digital TV, effective (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/digitaltv.html)in February, 2009. Great. Digital TV is a fantastic improvement over analog signals. But somewhere along the line, the bureaucrats in DC decided it would be nice to create an entitlement program out of this.

How can something as simple as requiring TV stations to transmit digital signals become an entitlement? When the government starts paying people to hold on to their old TV sets.

Where, in the history of this country, has there been any justification for government handouts so that people can be entertained? Have we really reached the bread and circus state in the United States?

I really _need_ one of those cute little electric cars... Where's my Congressman?


What About My Analog TV? Will It Still Work?

After February 17, 2009, you will be able to receive and view over-the-air digital programming with an analog TV only by purchasing a digital-to-analog set-top converter box. Between January 1, 2008, and March 31, 2009, all U.S. households will be able to request up to two coupons, worth $40 each, to be used toward the future purchase of eligible digital-to-analog converter boxes. Eligible converter boxes are for the conversion of over-the-air digital television signals, and therefore are not intended for analog TVs connected to a paid provider such as cable or satellite TV service.
Chumblywumbly
28-12-2007, 15:14
Those bastard poor people!

How dare they receive monetary help for a government/business-driven digital switchover!

Why can't the nice rich people enjoy their TV without the plebs mucking the place up?
Newer Burmecia
28-12-2007, 15:16
Those bastard poor people!

How dare they receive monetary help for a government/business-driven digital switchover!
I'd find those stupid robot switch-over adverts much less annoying if they told me I could get a voucher from Westminster.
Chumblywumbly
28-12-2007, 15:17
I'd find those stupid robot switch-over adverts much less annoying if they told me I could get a voucher from Westminster.
Exactly.

Analog TVs will be useless from next year (in the UK). Why shouldn't those on lower incomes be helped out with an enforced switchover?
Isidoor
28-12-2007, 15:19
so will the analog signals just stop in februari 2009? So the only way to view tv would be trough digital tv, or am I wrong? Why not just allow both? I think that's how it's done here.
Upper Botswavia
28-12-2007, 15:22
If the government DOESN'T give out coupons for people who cannot afford to upgrade from analog to digital tv by the time of the turnover, how will they be able to keep us (mis)informed? Imagine if everyone who couldn't watch tv anymore were to go out and DO something constructive with that time. Wow! Can't have THAT!

:D

I say this as a person who had her tv die a couple of months ago, and haven't replaced it, and don't miss it. Since it died I have crocheted a sweater, painted a chair, written a novel, been out of the house, made new friends, done some charity work, and started a new job. Oh, and saved $50 a month by canceling my cable.












Not to say tv is a bad thing, mind you.
Chumblywumbly
28-12-2007, 15:22
so will the analog signals just stop in februari 2009?
Yup.

The same's happening here in the UK, though if memory serves, it'll be in 2008, not 2009.


I say this as a person who had her tv die a couple of months ago, and haven't replaced it, and don't miss it. Since it died I have crocheted a sweater, painted a chair, written a novel, been out of the house, made new friends, done some charity work, and started a new job. Oh, and saved $50 a month by canceling my cable.
I'm TV-less too, and I'm enjoying it immensely.

But if government and business are getting together to enforce a switchover to digital, the least they could do would be to provide some cash for helping those on low incomes who wish a TV signal post-2009.
Imperial isa
28-12-2007, 15:23
and we do the same next year
Newer Burmecia
28-12-2007, 15:25
so will the analog signals just stop in februari 2009? So the only way to view tv would be trough digital tv, or am I wrong? Why not just allow both? I think that's how it's done here.
No idea. It's not as if we use the TV in the Kitchen much anyway, but when the next sorry lot of freshers move in they're going to have to pay for a digibox on top of the £120+ TV licence. In some parts of the country people are going to have to buy new aerials too.

Luckily, I thought ahead and got an integrated digital TV for my room, but most don't. Unlucky them, says the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
Isidoor
28-12-2007, 15:26
Yup.

The same's happening here in the UK, though if memory serves, it'll be in 2008, not 2009.

wouldn't the only people who benefit from this be the people who sell and manufacture the digital to analog kits and digital tv? So every coupon of 40$ (tax-payer money) would just go into the pockets of big corporations (and smaller dealers)? What a waste of money.
Newer Burmecia
28-12-2007, 15:27
Yup.

The same's happening here in the UK, though if memory serves, it'll be in 2008, not 2009.
Depends where you live, I think.

But if government and business are getting together to enforce a switchover to digital, the least they could do would be to provide some cash for helping those on low incomes who wish a TV signal post-2009.
Makes sense, if it's the government forcing it.
The_pantless_hero
28-12-2007, 15:34
I have Myrmidonisia on ignore and I would expand it to see what he wrote, but I already know - it's a bunch of bitching and being a dick about government handouts.

Well guess what, if the government forced me to suddenly switch to a diesel car because they are going to outlaw normal gas, I would expect them to subsidize my new fucking car.

Not to mention, it is going to be in the form of rebates - the commercial sector's favor method of discounting items because so few people actually turn them in that it makes them money to discount the items. And in addition, they are already limiting the rebate well below what it is going to cost to fix up whole households for the digital switch.
Myrmidonisia
28-12-2007, 15:46
Exactly.

Analog TVs will be useless from next year (in the UK). Why shouldn't those on lower incomes be helped out with an enforced switchover?

As I read it, the entitlement isn't means tested. So, it isn't just the hallowed poor that get to keep their old TV sets. We _all_ have access to these vouchers.

I guess I should apply for both and make sure I buy the converters so I can resell them when the program ends. Sort of a tax refund.
The_pantless_hero
28-12-2007, 16:00
We _all_ have access to these vouchers.
Yeah, I am sure people with digital tvs will use their vouchers to go out and pay the money the voucher doesn't cover for a digital converter for their tv.
Smunkeeville
28-12-2007, 16:02
so will the analog signals just stop in februari 2009? So the only way to view tv would be trough digital tv, or am I wrong? Why not just allow both? I think that's how it's done here.

yep. In November we replaced our analog TV's with digital ones, we got like 50 more channels. We don't have cable. Digital signals just don't work on analog sets.

We gave our analog TVs to friends with cable, they won't be affected by the switch over because the local cable company is providing digital receivers to all it's customers.

The only people really affected would have been people like us, who didn't have digital televisions and didn't wish to pay for cable. The voucher is good for $40, we looked up digital converters and found them starting at like $100, so it's really not much help, especially if you are poor.....$60 used to be hard to come by, and if we had it, it was going to not getting utilities cut off or making sure we had food. TV was last on the list, still is out of habit, hence no cable.
Myrmidonisia
28-12-2007, 16:10
Exactly.

Analog TVs will be useless from next year (in the UK). Why shouldn't those on lower incomes be helped out with an enforced switchover?

Yeah, I am sure people with digital tvs will use their vouchers to go out and pay the money the voucher doesn't cover for a digital converter for their tv.
So what's your point?

I AM going to buy my two converters and probably my wife's two converters... The program does end, so I figure it's a good risk that some "poor" soul that missed the boat will buy one of my converters on ebay.

The easiest thing to do is buy cable. Then watch the converted signal. I'm sure any poor person can pick up their cell phone and call the cable company... The United States does have some of the most well-off poor people in the world.

In fact, why are we helping any people that have cell phones and TV sets already? Clearly, they had the money to buy these "necessities". They can find the money to upgrade.
Nouvelle Wallonochie
28-12-2007, 16:15
The United States does have some of the most well-off poor people in the world.

Yes, I'm sure being richer than the poor in Africa is very consoling to those who can barely afford to heat their houses in the winter.

It's all relative.
Chumblywumbly
28-12-2007, 16:16
wouldn't the only people who benefit from this be the people who sell and manufacture the digital to analog kits and digital tv? So every coupon of 40$ (tax-payer money) would just go into the pockets of big corporations (and smaller dealers)? What a waste of money.
It's certainly no perfect system by any means; ideally we (well the US administration) could pump the money into better welfare projects.

My point though, was that if everybody who wishes to watch TV is being forced to upgrade, then the ability to upgrade shouldn't be determined by how much money you have.

As I read it, the entitlement isn't means tested. So, it isn't just the hallowed poor that get to keep their old TV sets. We _all_ have access to these vouchers.
So we all have access to TV.

And the problem is?
Desperate Measures
28-12-2007, 16:17
So what's your point?

I AM going to buy my two converters and probably my wife's two converters... The program does end, so I figure it's a good risk that some "poor" soul that missed the boat will buy one of my converters on ebay.

The easiest thing to do is buy cable. Then watch the converted signal. I'm sure any poor person can pick up their cell phone and call the cable company... The United States does have some of the most well-off poor people in the world.

In fact, why are we helping any people that have cell phones and TV sets already? Clearly, they had the money to buy these "necessities". They can find the money to upgrade.

Wait... you're complaining that the government is giving out hand-outs and then you're going to exploit that hand-out for personal gain? There's a word for you.... who can help me out?
NERVUN
28-12-2007, 16:17
In fact, why are we helping any people that have cell phones and TV sets already? Clearly, they had the money to buy these "necessities". They can find the money to upgrade.
Wow... already we have strange distortion of the facts by Myrmidonisia, why am I not surprised?

In any case, given that a second hand TV costs about $10 at the Salvation Army and that the airwaves are PUBLIC property, kinda behooves the government when forcing a change over to make sure that said public can still access them.

Or would you rather have had the government go out and buy new digital TVs for everyone?
The_pantless_hero
28-12-2007, 16:17
So what's your point?

I AM going to buy my two converters and probably my wife's two converters...
I will assume your wife is divorced from you and living in a separate, unique household. And honestly, nice job with the self-fulfilling prophecy there. "The government is giving everyone the chance to buy digital converters! That means everyone will go out and buy them just because they have vouchers (that only take off half the cost of the item) and the government will lose tons of money! ... I'm definitely going to go buy a bunch I don't need because I'm a dick and I do whatever I can to prove myself right."

The program does end, so I figure it's a good risk that some "poor" soul that missed the boat will buy one of my converters on ebay.
Because of course they are going to buy your old, shitty converters for the same price as newer converters. With converters having flooded the market, and the exponential price drop of electronics, the price is going to hit the floor soon after the program starts.

*snip*
I read "blah blah blah, whine whine whine, I am an elitist and think everyone is as well off as me and all poor people are poor because of their own fault and there are no mitigating factors at all."

Wait... you're complaining that the government is giving out hand-outs and then you're going to exploit that hand-out for personal gain? There's a word for you.... who can help me out?
Dick.
Desperate Measures
28-12-2007, 16:23
Dick.

Thank-you.
Sane Outcasts
28-12-2007, 16:32
Am I the only one that sees these weak subsidies as a means of ensuring that cable providers don't lose customers due to a government mandated change of service as wells as a means of softening the blow of forced obsolescence on the consumer? Obviously, changing the industry standard of service will cause companies to lose customers that can't afford the transition, so the government is acting to mitigate those losses, probably to placate both industry and consumer concerns.
Desperate Measures
28-12-2007, 16:35
Am I the only one that sees these weak subsidies as a means of ensuring that cable providers don't lose customers due to a government mandated change of service as wells as a means of softening the blow of forced obsolescence on the consumer? Obviously, changing the industry standard of service will cause companies to lose customers that can't afford the transition, so the government is acting to mitigate those losses, probably to placate both industry and consumer concerns.

Probably but is there any problem with that?
Sane Outcasts
28-12-2007, 16:39
Probably but is there any problem with that?

Not really, I'm just trying to add another dimension to this subsidy that seems to be ignored in the debate. Myrmidosia's main complaint seems to be that unprepared consumers are getting a handout, so perhaps considering the benefit to the industry will help him reconsider.
Ashmoria
28-12-2007, 16:41
So what's your point?

I AM going to buy my two converters and probably my wife's two converters... The program does end, so I figure it's a good risk that some "poor" soul that missed the boat will buy one of my converters on ebay.


you should probably think that one through a bit more. the likelihood is that when the rebate program ends the price of converters will drop by at least $40 and that as people need to replace old tv sets with new digital ones, they will put the converter boxes on ebay starting at $1.
Laerod
28-12-2007, 16:45
Have we really reached the bread and circus state in the United States?The bread and circus state has been the status quo in the US for a long, long time.
Isidoor
28-12-2007, 16:47
Not really, I'm just trying to add another dimension to this subsidy that seems to be ignored in the debate. Myrmidosia's main complaint seems to be that unprepared consumers are getting a handout, so perhaps considering the benefit to the industry will help him reconsider.

Why can't they just keep analog too? That way poor people shouldn't be forced to buy the converters or digital tv's and rich people who want to pay for it can watch digital tv... unless there is only a limited number of signals that can be sent I don't see why they couldn't do this.
Myrmidonisia
28-12-2007, 16:52
Not really, I'm just trying to add another dimension to this subsidy that seems to be ignored in the debate. Myrmidosia's main complaint seems to be that unprepared consumers are getting a handout, so perhaps considering the benefit to the industry will help him reconsider.
I'm not in favor of corporate handouts, either. Let's let everyone achieve on their own.

Back to the matter at hand, if someone can't afford a converter box, that's just too bad. Life isn't fair and it's not the government's business to make it so.

What do we subsidize next?
Sane Outcasts
28-12-2007, 17:02
Why can't they just keep analog too? That way poor people shouldn't be forced to buy the converters or digital tv's and rich people who want to pay for it can watch digital tv... unless there is only a limited number of signals that can be sent I don't see why they couldn't do this.

I really have no idea. Such a large-scale change in service seems to be better handled through a much more gradual step-down in analog service and manufacture and a step-up in digital availability and manufacture. The involvement of federal law in such a shift is really what has me scratching my head at this point, especially where Congress would have gotten the power to force such a change. I suppose the powers that allowed them to create the FCC have something to do with it, but I'd rather have seen the industry work the change on its own rather than follow a timetable set in federal law.
New Manvir
28-12-2007, 17:07
No idea. It's not as if we use the TV in the Kitchen much anyway, but when the next sorry lot of freshers move in they're going to have to pay for a digibox on top of the £120+ TV licence. In some parts of the country people are going to have to buy new aerials too.

Luckily, I thought ahead and got an integrated digital TV for my room, but most don't. Unlucky them, says the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

TV licence? You need a licence to watch a TV?
Smunkeeville
28-12-2007, 17:08
I really have no idea. Such a large-scale change in service seems to be better handled through a much more gradual step-down in analog service and manufacture and a step-up in digital availability and manufacture. The involvement of federal law in such a shift is really what has me scratching my head at this point, especially where Congress would have gotten the power to force such a change. I suppose the powers that allowed them to create the FCC have something to do with it, but I'd rather have seen the industry work the change on its own rather than follow a timetable set in federal law.

currently all my local stations are broadcasting digital, and have been for a few years.
Myrmidonisia
28-12-2007, 17:13
TV licence? You need a licence to watch a TV?
Yeah, isn't that a hoot? What possible justification can a government have to license receivers?
Hydesland
28-12-2007, 17:21
Exactly.

Analog TVs will be useless from next year (in the UK). Why shouldn't those on lower incomes be helped out with an enforced switchover?

Because they don't really need to be, a freeview box is only about 20 quid and a TV with the right input can also be bought for about that. They don't need the help, its just a massive waste of money.
Pan-Arab Barronia
28-12-2007, 17:29
Yeah, isn't that a hoot? What possible justification can a government have to license receivers?

BBC.
Pan-Arab Barronia
28-12-2007, 17:30
Because they don't really need to be, a freeview box is only about 20 quid and a TV with the right input can also be bought for about that. They don't need the help, its just a massive waste of money.

I'm under the impression Myrmidonisia is on about the US.
Myrmidonisia
28-12-2007, 17:32
BBC.
I guess the pledge drives that we endure for PBS wouldn't cut it, huh? How about having advertising pay for the broadcasts?
Nobel Hobos
28-12-2007, 17:35
Yes, our Congress is going to allow the complete change-over to digital TV, effective (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/digitaltv.html)in February, 2009. Great. Digital TV is a fantastic improvement over analog signals.

It fucking is not. I spare you the excoriation I could so easily deliver to the rest of your ideologically crippled thread-starting post.

Digital TV is marginally better in resolution and colour gamut, than analog TV. Take a google at the introduction of colour to analog TV, consider how damn well that works without obsoleting in any way the technology it was built on. Reconsider this, the most valid of the premises of your stupid thread starting post.

Then visit a tattoo parlor, and have the word "fantastic" tattooed on your forehead. If anybody asks, explain that it means "my insights are marginally better than a bumper sticker on a horse's arse."


I blame Christmas. People who for the rest of the year realize that they are dogshit dumb, get their egos inflated by sitting down with their illiterately dumb kinfolk and are quite unjustly rewarded for being the intellectual flower of the family. Then the crawl back here and post up some random shit which crosses their sad excuse for a mind. Just because ... er ... they reckon. It seems interesting to them. Let's have a thread. :rolleyes:

I'm working up a New Year's resolution ... I think it's pretty obvious what I'm thinking of.
Laerod
28-12-2007, 17:36
I guess the pledge drives that we endure for PBS wouldn't cut it, huh? How about having advertising pay for the broadcasts?Doesn't work. You end up with infotainment instead of news.
Chumblywumbly
28-12-2007, 17:36
TV licence? You need a licence to watch a TV?
The BBC is a publicly funded broadcaster; it doesn't get any revenue from advertising, which is meant to keep it free from commercial interests. Thus, anyone who buys a TV pays a yearly fee (known as a TV licence) which goes to the BBC.

It's not a perfect system, there's certainly problems with it, but it attempts to keep the BBC free from big business interests and accountable to the public.

In my view, an admirable system; in theory certainly, and in practice usually.

Because they don't really need to be, a freeview box is only about 20 quid and a TV with the right input can also be bought for about that. They don't need the help, its just a massive waste of money.
What do you mean 'they don't need the help'?

£40/$80 (assuming prices are similar in the US) may not be a huge amount to you or me, but for someone on low income, especially large low income families, that's a fair bit of cash. And if their being forced to change to a digital signal anyway, I think it's only fair they get a helping hand.
Hydesland
28-12-2007, 17:45
What do you mean 'they don't need the help'?

£40/$80 (assuming prices are similar in the US) may not be a huge amount to you or me, but for someone on low income, especially large low income families, that's a fair bit of cash.

Not really, I actually come from a sort of working class family myself and we have never had any problems with it. You'd be surprised how much disposable income the poor actually have (with all the benefits and what not), I would say that roughly 50% of the people on the council estate nearby have sky or virgin digital, and that's about £30 a month.
Pan-Arab Barronia
28-12-2007, 17:49
Not really, I actually come from a sort of working class family myself and we have never had any problems with it. You'd be surprised how much disposable income the poor actually have (with all the benefits and what not), I would say that roughly 50% of the people on the council estate nearby have sky or virgin digital, and that's about £30 a month.

Myrmidonisia is on about the US. Agreed, I'd say being poor over here is a little more luxurious than being poor over there.
Hydesland
28-12-2007, 17:51
Myrmidonisia is on about the US. Agreed, I'd say being poor over here is a little more luxurious than being poor over there.

In the post I quoted, Chumblywumbly put (in the UK), so I assumed he was talking about that.
Chumblywumbly
28-12-2007, 17:53
You'd be surprised how much disposable income the poor actually have (with all the benefits and what not), I would say that roughly 50% of the people on the council estate nearby have sky or virgin digital, and that's about £30 a month.
You'd be surprised how much people talk inanely about the state of the poor, and pull statistics out of their ass about benefits.

Care to provide any shred of proof for your assertions?
Newer Burmecia
28-12-2007, 17:59
I guess the pledge drives that we endure for PBS wouldn't cut it, huh? How about having advertising pay for the broadcasts?
God no. With TV advertising revenues falling, ITV and Channel 4 have taken to having sponsoring and advertising segments on everything down to the weather. I intentionally watch BBC News in order to avoid having to endure the terrible Christmas perfume adverts. I'll quite happily pay the licence to have good BBC programming while being able to do that.
Chumblywumbly
28-12-2007, 18:01
In the post I quoted, Chumblywumbly put (in the UK), so I assumed he was talking about that.
No, the voucher policy is only applying to the US.

Apologies if I wasn't too clear.
Pan-Arab Barronia
28-12-2007, 18:06
God no. With TV advertising revenues falling, ITV and Channel 4 have taken to having sponsoring and advertising segments on everything down to the weather. I intentionally watch BBC News in order to avoid having to endure the terrible Christmas perfume adverts. I'll quite happily pay the licence to have good BBC programming while being able to do that.

Good to know I'm not the only one that changes to the BBC sheerly to avoid the adverts.
The_pantless_hero
28-12-2007, 18:17
Not really, I actually come from a sort of working class family myself and we have never had any problems with it. You'd be surprised how much disposable income the poor actually have (with all the benefits and what not), I would say that roughly 50% of the people on the council estate nearby have sky or virgin digital, and that's about £30 a month.
Oh yes, working class. The poor class :rolleyes:
Newer Burmecia
28-12-2007, 18:29
Good to know I'm not the only one that changes to the BBC sheerly to avoid the adverts.
The bonus is when you can tape films without the adverts too.:D
Laerod
28-12-2007, 18:32
God no. With TV advertising revenues falling, ITV and Channel 4 have taken to having sponsoring and advertising segments on everything down to the weather. I intentionally watch BBC News in order to avoid having to endure the terrible Christmas perfume adverts. I'll quite happily pay the licence to have good BBC programming while being able to do that.Most of the German commercial channels run spiffy shows with neat CGI backgrounds for their anchors on their news programs. They even stopped referring to them by their German names and only call it "Die [insert channel here] News". It's pathetic. The license thing that we have with our public broadcasting is well worth the quality news programs it buys. When I want entertaining movies or series, I'll watch the commercial channels.

A broadcasting system funded only by ratings is going to degenerate much like the US media landscape has.
Marrakech II
28-12-2007, 19:15
Yup.

The same's happening here in the UK, though if memory serves, it'll be in 2008, not 2009.



I'm TV-less too, and I'm enjoying it immensely.

But if government and business are getting together to enforce a switchover to digital, the least they could do would be to provide some cash for helping those on low incomes who wish a TV signal post-2009.

The conversion process starts on Jan 1, 2008 in the US until Feb 17,2009. All TVs built after early 2007 have digital capacity for the US. I would suspect that the UK is running under a similar program.



From the FCC itself:
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/digitaltv.html
Tech-gnosis
28-12-2007, 22:39
Back to the matter at hand, if someone can't afford a converter box, that's just too bad. Life isn't fair and it's not the government's business to make it so.

The government is mandating that all television broadcasts be converted to digital format. This will have many benefits, so it seems, but it will also make everyone buy a converter if they dont want to buy/afford to buy a new television or lose tv. Therefore, in compensation, the government will subsidize the purchase of the converters in a one time deal. Its not an entitlement so much as restitution.

What do we subsidize next?

You dislike subisidizing entertainment for the poor but you're ok with subsidizing the mortgages of the nonpoor, such as yourself. To explain this dichotomy I have to logically go with either you're ok with subsidies for yourself at the expense of others you suffer from cognitive dissonance.
Vetalia
29-12-2007, 00:07
Analog TVs are archaic and a waste of precious resources that can be far better allocated to other uses; if we need to pay a little money so that everyone can retain access to the TV services they have purchased, so be it. I have no doubt the economic and practical benefits of digitalization are far, far more than enough to compensate for the expense; not to mention we all benefit from the better quality of digital television and the alternative uses of analog bandwidth.