The Dean Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Everyone files a tax return... Why wouldn't it have helped the households most in need...? Is that a serious question? Are you so far out of touch that you don't understand poverty, and the uselessness of tax credits to households that make so little money that a tax credit means nothing? Let them eat cake, indeed. With that said, it would have cost the gov't far more to give everyone a tax credit, when most households have no need for the box. The households that have the greatest need for the converter are the household that can least afford to purchase it. But, I forgot, the poor aren't worth discussing on TSW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 You inebriated liar. Consistent, though... a domani. time stamp added. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 I don't know. Please forgive me. I googled the lyrics not trusting my memory. Then I did a quick paste without really checking it. You're right--it's a grievous error. Please accept my apology. Steve Martin deserves better. You deserve better. The discerning readers of TSW deserve better (the non-discerning ones can choke on their pizza in a cup for all I care). Please believe me when I say that I will do better in future posts. Right on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Who paid for the government program? Are you actually saying that no money was put into this at all by the taxpayer? Really? And what the hell does getting TV signals have to do with rights protected under the government??? BROADCASTING falls under government protection, as it falls under property rights. Someone interfering with those broadcasts can be prosecuted for theft. But having the right equipment to recieve those signals is up to those desiring to get them. This is no different than any other private property right in the world! You're freaking out of you gord on this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Still not sure what you are asking. If you are asking if this is a money-grab/boondoggle for electronics companies and TV stations and networks, I would say the answer is...maybe. It depends on how you want to interpret some of the moves. What it ISN'T, though, is a real upgrade for the average antenna-using household. I do not recall a real groundswell demanding digital TV, by general consumers. But, since our representatives not only approved the transition, it REQUIRED it, then supplying the converter boxes to those impacted by this "upgrade" is really the only option. I understand complaints about the changeover to DTV...but, given the changeover, I cannot understand opposition to the converter coupon program. No, a tax credit wouldn't likely help the households most in need of the coupon. Free converter boxes (2-3 per household) would have been the best option, IMO. Our govt also requires meeting electrical codes.... yet they don't give you the wiring. Hell, the town required my brother to plant ~30 arborvitaes along his driveway before they gave him a CO (still not quite sure what fuggin' hedges have to do with building occupancy/safety... ). They didn't give him the trees. Do you follow the logic? The govt charges entrance fees for most (if not every) national parks, even tho those lands belong to the public the same way that the airwaves do. No way the govt should be fully funding the transition by buying everyone 2 or 3 boxes. How fair would that be to people who have to pay for locals on sat/cable, and yet the govt doesn't give them a break? I'm saying this as a member of an OTA-only house. A $40 coupon for a $60 box is sufficient for a nominal fee structure.... Doesn't really matter though, as the point remains, the converter program was paid for by the lease holders, not the gov't. Not exactly. The coupons for early adopters started shipping in February/March 2008. The spectrum wasn't auctioned until early summer and to be honest, I'm not sure how they're handling payment --- if it was an initial lump sum or will be spread out with discrete payments (I would guess this. Still, monthly? yearly?). Essentially, the govt was/is supplying these with money they didn't/don't actually have on hand. The coupons have been temporarily suspended, tho you can still apply. The plan now includes issuing more coupons equaling the funds that had been allocated to coupons that weren't used, once they figure out how much that will be. One of the main grievances is that for early adopters, who got the coupons when only a few models of CECBs were available and then were enticed by promises of the DTVPal or other boxes that didn't become available until after the coupons expired. The idea for expiration w/in 3 months kind of sucked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Where was my free money from the Govinmint when 8 tracks went to cassette, then to CD's. The Government subsidising this is complete Bullshiit. The gubmint didn't pass legislation requiring the change from 8-tracks to cassette. I can accept the argument that the government should take responsibility for helping people make the transition, given that they legislated the transition. What's bull sh-- is the original legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 The gubmint didn't pass legislation requiring the change from 8-tracks to cassette. I can accept the argument that the government should take responsibility for helping people make the transition, given that they legislated the transition. What's bull sh-- is the original legislation. Why not keep everything backwards compatiable... Keep broadcasting the analog signal while madating that a digital signal has to be broadcasted by a certain date. Simple no? What does the gov't want to do with the old analog frequencies once the shut them off? Maybe that is why they passed legislation. ?? On another note... What will eventually happen with radio... Will my antique tube radio stop working someday? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Why not keep everything backwards compatiable... Keep broadcasting the analog signal while madating that a digital signal has to be broadcasted by a certain date. Isn't that what they are already doing? Broadcasting both signals till next month? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 I clicked 'Edit' rather than 'Reply' and lost my previous post to the ether. I'll say again to EII in that regular radio isn't going to be changing. And to DCTom, there are plenty of arguments for and against the transition and the specific legislation. Bottom line, it's better teevee signals w/in local markets that allows VHF-low (2-6) to be used by first responders and was auctioned for commercial use (Verizon and AT&T were the big purchasers) for such things as wireless Internet, cellular services, and so-called "white space devices" which could lead to some economic stimuli in a country that could use some. For some, getting and setting up a box might be a pain in the rear for about 2 hours, but for the vast majority of people, the transition will bring a marked improvement. The below is new content. The thing is, broadcasting both gets pretty expensive for teevee stations. Power, maintaining both antennas (to wit, the weight of a broadcast dish on a tower can be 14 tons!), more engineering and production staff to oversee both signals. Just saw a segment on "Greater Boston" where a station manager said that any delay in the transition will cost WGBH (the country's flagship PBS station) about $100K per month. Just not something that's sustainable. As I said above, the cost of the electricity to broadcast both analog and digital is staggering. He repeated that. Imagine having to pay for 24/7/365 of 100 KW (Nevermind that it all goes into having that much less less juice on the nation's grid available --- that's no small power output. Digital channels typically use less power than analog to achieve the same/similar signal radius.) Also, the contracts are already in place to do antenna work that was contingent on the "date certain" that has now become uncertain, which means more costs. This all leads to the conclusion that the faster the conversion can happen, the better. Fully 96% of the Boston market is ready. In more rural locations (e.g. In Iowa, 20% are estimated unready) the number increases. Nationally, 6% of TV viewers are not ready. I just don't see how it's justifiable to sink in the mud for people who always wait until the last minute anyway. I was watching an interview on Charlie Rose last night with Lee Scott, the Pres. and CEO of WalMart. He said something that many people just never grasp. Taking a fast general course of action --- where you arrive at an 80% solution and then gradually work at the other 20% --- is by far preferable to waiting. "The opposite of good is perfect," he said. So many people get paralyzed when they can't do everything in one fell swoop, and so, nothing ever gets done. I really hope Obama does not turn out to be this kind of president, but his admin's signal that they'd like to delay the transition b/c of a single-digit percentage has me shaking my head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 http://www.engadgethd.com/2009/01/28/digit...-pass-in-house/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 The gubmint didn't pass legislation requiring the change from 8-tracks to cassette. I can accept the argument that the government should take responsibility for helping people make the transition, given that they legislated the transition. What's bull sh-- is the original legislation. That's the way I see it, too. Also, the system they used to distribute the coupons was a little fakakta. What I don't understand is, why the $$ put aside for expired coupons isn't immediately available for new, valid, coupons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 That's the way I see it, too. Also, the system they used to distribute the coupons was a little fakakta. What I don't understand is, why the $$ put aside for expired coupons isn't immediately available for new, valid, coupons. Actually, the funds for expired coupons has been recycled toward new coupons being issued. That's been happening since they started being issued. The gubmint didn't pass legislation requiring the change from 8-tracks to cassette. Then again, the mechanism of delivery/playback for 8-tracks or cassettes was not publicly-owned airwaves. In order for this switch to happen, Congress, acting as the people's representatives, had to authorize the spectrum auction. And to make it politically palatable to force OTA-only households to stop using airwaves that belong to everyone and no one, the coupon program was created. Essentially, it's like "Brewster's Millions" --- the federal govt spends ~$1.5 billion so they can collect ~$19 billion. It was found money if they just took a few steps. Simultaneously, they upgrade teevee signals for most people, give local first responders more efficient communications systems, and hopefully create some new business technology for improved cell coverage / wireless Internet / etc. The switch is a win-win scenario if ever there was such a thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Not so fast... *sigh* http://www.engadgethd.com/2009/01/30/senat...ansition-delay/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted January 30, 2009 Author Share Posted January 30, 2009 Not so fast... *sigh* http://www.engadgethd.com/2009/01/30/senat...ansition-delay/ Once again, the dumbest members of American society get another victory based on the power of immense stupidity. But they reliably vote Democratic, so that's that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 http://www.engadgethd.com/2009/02/06/the-d...#readercomments My favorite is that this will not only cost us more money, but it's also not very "green" to delay the transition -- since we're going to end up wasting a lot of electricity to keep broadcasting in both analog and digital. And for what? So that 5 million of the 303 million people in the country don't lose their TV signal due to being too lazy to get a converter box in the past two years? Whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 One local article about the switch... As thousands Upstate wait for TV coupons, 3 area stations may not delay switch to digital ... As of Monday, 4,507 households in the 25th Congressional District were stuck on a waiting list for $40 coupons from the federal government to help pay for digital converter boxes. Yet at least three Syracuse-area TV stations say they plan to make the switch anyway, turning off their analog signals. The local waiting list is the second highest of any congressional district in Upstate New York, and higher than whole states -- including Vermont, Delaware, Alaska, Hawaii, South Dakota and Wyoming. Now granted those states have lower populations than NY in general, it just shows that more rural areas got it, while more urban places sat on their ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 http://www.engadgethd.com/2009/02/06/the-d...#readercomments My favorite is that this will not only cost us more money, but it's also not very "green" to delay the transition -- since we're going to end up wasting a lot of electricity to keep broadcasting in both analog and digital. And for what? So that 5 million of the 303 million people in the country don't lose their TV signal due to being too lazy to get a converter box in the past two years? Whatever. Not very "green" and for damn sure, not very economical. Especially now. There's over 1,500 stations in the country. Can cost ~ 20K-30K per month just for electricity for an analog transmitter. Add up the low end and that's $30 MILLION per month in power. Yet at least three Syracuse-area TV stations say they plan to make the switch anyway, turning off their analog signals. Now granted those states have lower populations than NY in general, it just shows that more rural areas got it, while more urban places sat on their ass. Many stations have decided to go all-digital on 17 Feb. as planned. Vast majority of (if not all) stations that planned to switch their channel allotment are going to "flash-cut" to all-digital at midnight. Several stations just in my area have had a "catastrophic failure" of their analog transmitter --- read: it broke , and we're not putting any more money into it. As a woman who has a column dedicated to the switch writes, "Analog broadcasting which was scheduled to go out with a bang on Feb. 17, will now go out with a wimper on June 12. How many more 'catastrophic transmitter failures' do yo think will occur in the next few weeks?" The new bill doesn't require that broadcasters have to maintain the analog signal, just that they can continue if they want to and need to inform the FCC if they're ending, whereas the previous legislation would've forced them off the air. Some areas just aren't ready yet --- as I noted above about some sections of rural Iowa where over 20 percent aren't ready. Some areas are having a very difficult time with signal radii for digital using VHF-high and UHF --- there are spots in Maine, for example, where people have been told by officialdom that if they want TV, they need to get cable or sat, and other areas of the country where terrain and distance is a real problem. Having a digital converter box is sometimes only half the problem; a lot of people would do well to upgrade their antennas and/or pre-amplifiers, especially people at long distances from the towers. All in all, I wouldn't be so fast to make that generalization about rural preparedness vs. urban malaise. And then, urban residents can be digital-ready in about 45 minutes. Rural folk (like myself) might find themselves SOL if they haven't prepared and don't have an adequate existing antenna (old ones will still work, but performance does degrade over time) and February is no time to be up on the roof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 and don't have an adequate existing antenna (old ones will still work, but performance does degrade over time) and February is no time to be up on the roof. How can an antenna degrade over time? It's a peice of metal. This is the first time I've ever heard someone say that so I'm curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 How can an antenna degrade over time? It's a peice of metal. This is the first time I've ever heard someone say that so I'm curious. I would think there is some electronic circuitry in there. I just bought/donated one for work that is supposed to be "DHTV enhanced"... It does have a 50db gain (AC adapter)... Probably a farce I thought?? Strange, because we had another one (not "DHTV ehanced") a few years ago that crapped out... The power supply went bad... I noticed with this new one that they say to plug the AC adapter into an outlet in a "vertical position"... Which BTW, don't get me started, most outlets in the Chicago area have them in the "horizontal position"... I was wondering if this by some strange reason would "degrade" the unit over time? Maybe not a connection at all, but I was wondering. On another note... Since we use an antenna here, I have noticed the DTV picture is great... YET, stand in a bad spot and the picture will freeze or pixalate... Sometimes, I would just rather deal with a constant picture and the "snow" that comes with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 How can an antenna degrade over time? It's a peice of metal. This is the first time I've ever heard someone say that so I'm curious. Chimney emissions are pretty corrosive to metal (esp. aluminum which antennas are generally made of since it's lightweight), for those with chimney mounts (not recommended for the life of an antenna and, more important, for the structure of the chimney)... and general oxidation for other parts that hurt reception. Salt water air for those living near the ocean --- that stevestojan destroys everything, not just antenna/electronics stuff. I've read people who have to replace outdoor coaxial cable every couple of years, while normal life is ~10-15. People on AVSforum recommend replacing an antenna about the same, every 10-15 years for peak reception. I think that'll especially be the case for newer models with circuit boards and direct F-connectors instead of baluns. Old antennas will still work... they just won't work as well. I've done conversions for several people out here using both existing and new and it does make a difference. And, as I say, borrowing a little from Ben Linus on Lost, "[Digital] is a finicky B word!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts