Obama, I Loves Ya, but STFU about DTV

[Gangster Octopus]

Today Obama endorsed delaying the swithcover to DTV (http://tvdecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/obama-recommends-delay-in-digital-tv-switch/?hp).

Bad idea. The switchover will allow digital reception to improve, but more importantly by keeping the date, which has been in affect for over a year, will not alloow those who procrastinate to keep doing it. And I guarantee you you push it back three months, folks will still be analog when that date arrives

Be more creative in your solutions. Make the switch, and people can switchover and if necessary give them a tax break if it is in the national interest.

But don't delay this now.

[Broomstick]

Yeah, OK, but demand for the converters is rising because a lot of people are planning to drop cable and satellite TV because the economy is crap, they've lost their jobs, whatever, and due to those same issues can't afford to buy a new TV.

And yeah, maybe TV isn't essential the way, say, food and water are but it still is one of major ways news is disseminated, including news of hazardous weather, traffic information, and so on which is local and pertinent. Loss of TV access will certainly have an impact, and the situation is significantly different than when that deadline was set. That doesn't mean we should move the deadline, but I can see re-opening the topic for at least discussion.

[Gangster Octopus]

Yeah, OK, but demand for the converters is rising because a lot of people are planning to drop cable and satellite TV because the economy is crap, they've lost their jobs, whatever, and due to those same issues can't afford to buy a new TV.

They don't need to buy a new TV, just a converter box.

[Captain Amazing]

Right, but the problem is, the federal government's run out of money to provide the coupons subsidizing the converter boxes.

[Chief Pedant]

Right, but the problem is, the federal government's run out of money to provide the coupons subsidizing the converter boxes.

Which was a really stupid idea in the first place. The Federal Government doesn't pay for anything. Taxes from people and corporations do. Along with plenty of borrowing from the taxpayers. And the Feds were out of money from other stupid programs long before they decided the general population need free converter boxes. Over a billion dollars worth, if I recall.

[JRDelirious]

I'm left wondering what would the true free market price of a converter box have been, absent the subsidy program (i.e. would the stable price point have ended up lower most of the year, with a rise around now due to late-adopter demand). And really, the subsidy itself was in order to facilitate the boxes to people who otherwise would have no TV access.

[Squink]

Couldn't we just delay the MRAP's for Iraq another year, and pass the savings on to consumers in the form of converter coupons? There's gotta be some victory bonus for us John Does, doesn't there?

[Captain Amazing]

Which was a really stupid idea in the first place. .

No it wasn't. The converter boxes are relatively expensive, running from $40-80 a pop, and the way the digital conversion works, the only people who need them are the people who get antenna service on an old TV...and most of those are people who can't afford a new tv or cable, which means they're the population least likely to have $40-80 to spend on luxuries. So unless you, as a government bureaucrat or elected official, want to have to explain why Aunt Mabel, who's living off her social security checks, can't watch her stories anymore, you'd better find some way to subsidize the cost of the converters.

[steronz]

I always figured that the true market price of the converter boxes would be about $40 less than they are now if the coupons didn't exist.

[Steve MB]

Right, but the problem is, the federal government's run out of money to provide the coupons subsidizing the converter boxes.

What about the money from licensing the newly available spectrum?

[Frank]

The converter boxes are relatively expensive, running from $40-80 a pop, and the way the digital conversion works, the only people who need them are the people who get antenna service on an old TV...
How many are going to find that they need a new antenna? If you add the price of a new antenna and a converter box, you're not too much below what a 20" digital CRT is selling for these days.

I'm not, honestly, overly sympathetic to those who have been putting off whatever they need to do when both the changeover and the coupon availability have been publicized for months if not years.

[Una Persson]

This is absolutely ludicrous. The DTV switch has been delayed for years over this shit. Pushing it back 3 months will change NOTHING whatsoever - anyone who can't afford a box is not going to be able to afford it in 3 months, and even if coupons are made available they STILL aren't going to get one as long as they know it's a moving target. In 3 months we'll hear the same reasons, the same rationales, the same excuses, and it will be pushed off again. If they're going to delay it again they may as well just cancel the whole fucking thing and go back to analog.

How many people, honestly, really, with hard, verifiable, non-partisan citations, actually cannot afford a converter box? Anyone know? Is it more or less than 1%?

We've spent too much time and money on this already, pull the plug and let's move on.

[Rushgeekgirl]

Yeah and if those dumbass procrastinators would stop watching tv all day and get a real job the extra cost wouldn't be an issue!

I'll tell you something Frank. The paychecks in my life over the past few years I've had an extra sixty bucks for a tv converter I spent them on fresh veggies for my family because that was the only time we got them after the garden dried up.

I will more than welcome another delay. And I might still be on analog in three months but at LEAST we'll have an extra few hundred when the tax refund comes in. Maybe. I hope, because I really need my daily Caillou and Sid the Science Kid fix.

[Rushgeekgirl]

By the way I applied for a coupon months ago and I'm still waiting for it to show up.
Maybe that's the reason for the delay. Damn that Obama wanting to look out for the poor any way he can. We simply don't deserve any extra time.

[SanibelMan]

Not that this is really related, but a few weeks ago at Target I saw a guy buy groceries at Target with his $40 coupon card. I didn't really realize what he was doing until he was walking away, but I said to the cashier, "Wait, is that allowed?" She shrugged. "The card went through," she said.

[Frank]

The paychecks in my life over the past few years I've had an extra sixty bucks for a tv converter I spent them on fresh veggies for my family because that was the only time we got them after the garden dried up.
So save a dollar a week for a year. Or buy frozen veggies for a month. Or whatever.

Look, you make it clear that you have priorities in life that are higher than maintaining TV reception. That's fine - really - that's your call. But it is your call, your decision, and if it's not that important to you, why should it be important to me?

[Polycarp]

Perhaps one useful fact might be of interest. Yes, the switchover has been announced. Yes, it's arguable whether the government should be in the business of subsidizing converter boxes.

But if they're not available -- just plain out of stock and no certain date for a new shipment -- which happens to be the case around here -- then you're telling anyone who has an analog TV and is not supporting Time-Warner or DirecTV's bottom line, they just found themelves in possesion of an electronic 19" doorstop.

We'll buy one. It'll take about a week of Barb's net salary, but we'll do it. IF they're available for sale.

As to why we haven't yet -- we like heat, electricity, and telephone. We have two luxuries: computer with Internet connection and TV. We pay for necessities first. I don't go around crying poverty, but I am disgusted with people who have the attitude, "Just spend the money." Sometimes the money's just not there. We've survived; we will survive. Apparently, without TV . Which still makes us better off than much of the planet. But rest assured I see some of you in a new light, from your comments above.

[Frank]

Which still makes us better off than much of the planet. But rest assured I see some of you in a new light, from your comments above.
Over fucking television?

For crying out loud, we're not talking about food, or shelter, or medicine. We're talking about fucking television.

[Captain Amazing]

What about the money from licensing the newly available spectrum?

What about it? That money is in the Treasury (as are all the fines and licensing fees the FCC brings in), but it hasn't been allocated to the FCC or that specific program. Remember, a government agency can only spend the funds th Congress allocates to it.

This funding problem will go away in 2 months, at most. Remember, the converter coupons expire 2 months after they're issued. Undoubtedly, there are a lot of people who got the coupons who won't redeem them in that time frame, so at that point, the money from the expired coupons will go back in the budget and more can be issued.

And, btw, keep an eye out on Jan. 15, which is the date Hawaii goes digital. Seeing how that goes will let everyone know what problems still need to be fixed.

[gazpacho]

Over fucking television?

For crying out loud, we're not talking about food, or shelter, or medicine. We're talking about fucking television.No we are not. The fucking television is in hotels rooms. Heavy petting television (cable) is like wise not affected. We are talking about mild T and A television.

[Zakalwe]

Over fucking television?

For crying out loud, we're not talking about food, or shelter, or medicine. We're talking about fucking television.Then why are you so upset about it? Do you get your tv via over-the-air antenna? If not, why do you give a fuck when they switch the signal from analog to digital?

[Frank]

Then why are you so upset about it? Do you get your tv via over-the-air antenna? If not, why do you give a fuck when they switch the signal from analog to digital?
As long as analog continues, the bandwidth is not available for other purposes. Times change. Technology changes.

How long do you believe analog broadcasting should continue? Forever? Because if not forever, I guarantee you that on your chosen changeover date of July 28, 2076, someone will be complaining about it.

[Una Persson]

This isn't a rich versus poor thing, it's a "where is the cutoff point for rolling out a new technology, given that it's impossible to include 100% of the people" thing.

* What are the actual number of people who honestly cannot afford a converter box - not who choose not to get one or who decided smokes were more important than one, but who cannot afford it, and

* What is the cutoff line, exactly, for switching over? 1%? 0.01%? So long as one Obama voter cannot afford it?

For ALL things in life like this there is a cutoff point - SOME people are always going to be left out. That sucks if you're one of them, but to what extent can the public policy of a national broadcast infrastructure bend to the will of a shrinking group of people?

I say the switchover time should not be delayed, and that is opinion based on following this issue for years. Present factual arguments to convince me, and I will change my opinion, I promise you.

[tim314]

This isn't a rich versus poor thing, it's a "where is the cutoff point for rolling out a new technology, given that it's impossible to include 100% of the people" thing.

* What are the actual number of people who honestly cannot afford a converter box - not who choose not to get one or who decided smokes were more important than one, but who cannot afford it
Sorry, but it really is a rich vs. poor thing. If you aren't poor, the cost of a converter box probably isn't a big deal, but if you are poor, it is. You can argue about whether they could afford it if they cut this, that and the other out of their lives, but the point is that if you're poor paying that much hurts.

If you're struggling to put food on the table for your family or pay the heating bill, a converter box is a significant expense. I'm sure there are people who'd say "Well, if you're that poor then you don't have the luxury to worry about watching T.V." But life is hard enough when you're poor. How quick would you be to give up one of the few forms of entertainment you can reasonably afford?

[IAmNotSpartacus]

Bad idea. The switchover will allow digital reception to improve,
Sorry, what? Digital TV transmitters will have significantly smaller coverage footprints due to signal loss. Whereas an analog TV would show some ghosting, snow or static, the digital TV will simply cut out entirely. Either you are getting enough 1s and 0s for the BER correction or you're not.

Second, most of these stations will be transitioning to UHF frequencies. Some will stay VHF. It should be patently clear that for a given transmit power, VHF waves will propagate much further than UHF. There are limited instances where UHF will perform better (especially true in hilly areas), however most transmitters were engineered long ago to deal with this problem (which is simple-- put the transmitting antennas up high).


I am not exactly certain what you mean by digital reception improving-- can you clarify for me?

[Achren]

How many are going to find that they need a new antenna? If you add the price of a new antenna and a converter box, you're not too much below what a 20" digital CRT is selling for these days.You can build an antenna for under 5 or 10 dollars that'll work just as well as the store-bought. I don't have a dog in this fight, but with the coupon and DIY antenna, upgrading our old TV cost under $20 (we've never had cable so signed up for the coupons awhile ago). Much cheaper than a new TV.

[Liberal]

While it may be possible that Obama's position on this matter is not optimal, it is more likely that he knows more than we do and has made a wiser decision than we would.

(I voice this opinion to prove that those who call me an Obama sycophant are wrong.)

[cckerberos]

(I voice this opinion to prove that those who call me an Obama sycophant are wrong.)
Voiced with irony intended, I hope?

[Broomstick]

They don't need to buy a new TV, just a converter box.
Right now I spend about $500 more a month than I'm bringing in to the household and my savings are nearly gone. Do you think I'm going to buy food... or a converter box? When TV flips to digital I will have no more TV because I simply can't afford even a converter box. I'm hardly the only one in this position. Contrast this to 18 months ago when I didn't give a damn because I had steady employment and a very nice deluxe satellite TV package. As I said, things have changed for a number of people in this country.

[akennett]

Okay, but what if this change in situation had happened a couple of months after the switch? Would you then demand that we go back to analog signal?

[Liberal]

Voiced with irony intended, I hope?What irony? This is not the first time I've been critical of Obama.

[atomicbadgerrace]

Right now I spend about $500 more a month than I'm bringing in to the household and my savings are nearly gone. Do you think I'm going to buy food... or a converter box? When TV flips to digital I will have no more TV because I simply can't afford even a converter box. I'm hardly the only one in this position. Contrast this to 18 months ago when I didn't give a damn because I had steady employment and a very nice deluxe satellite TV package. As I said, things have changed for a number of people in this country.

Do you anticipate your position being significantly different in 3 months, or will you be back to oppose the switch then, too? 6 months? A year?

[MsWhatsit]

Can someone explain exactly what the benefit is of stopping analog transmission? I've seen a few vague references to "the bandwidth is needed for other purposes," but I am unclear on what purposes. If I knew why it was necessary for analog transmissions to stop, I might feel less irked about the whole thing.

We are one of the troglodyte households that has been receiving over-the-air transmissions up to this point. We got our converter box. And found out that the channel we watch the most (PBS; yes, really) doesn't come in at all via digital transmission. It comes in perfectly, sharp as a tack, via analog transmission; with the digital box, it's a black screen. I have contacted the TV station to ask if they have troubleshooting ideas, and they said it's a common problem because the digital signal is more sensitive to buildings being in the way, etc. We're going ahead and paying for a basic cable package, but it's money I'd rather be spending on other things. Yes, yes, "it's just TV," it's not a necessity of life, we'd probably all be better off if we chucked the idiot box out the window and spent more time reading books, blah blah, but the point is, I have a TV, it works fine, and in about a month it's going to be a doorstop if we don't start paying the cable company a monthly fee.

So yeah, if I knew why exactly this was such a critical issue, I might feel less irritable about the whole thing.

[Zakalwe]

Can someone explain exactly what the benefit is of stopping analog transmission?

<snip>

I have a TV, it works fine, and in about a month it's going to be a doorstop if we don't start paying the cable company a monthly fee.Asked and answered.

[Broomstick]

Do you anticipate your position being significantly different in 3 months
Unfortunately not although I try to remain optimistic that one of them hundreds of job applications I've filled out in the past year will result in my being hired.

In six months, if things don't change, it might be a moot point if we're homeless.

Of course, if the damn coupon I ordered shows up in the mail that might well make a difference. That's part of the problem - people ordered those vouchers and they never showed up. I'm told one was sent to me, it just hasn't arrived yet. Or someone stole it out of my mailbox.

...or will you be back to oppose the switch then, too? 6 months? A year?
It's not so much that I'm opposed as that a delay would be of convenience to me in that I get a few more months of TV as opposed to not having TV. Given my precarious finances I have very few entertainment options open to me. Yes, there's the library and that does work for me. Saying "read books" is more problematic for my husband as his diabetes has affected his vision. Yes, there are "books on tape" but we have no tape player and our CD player stopped working last month. That's one of the sucky things about poverty, stuff breaks and you have a choice between eating and replacing the stuff. Of course, I'm sure someone will be by shortly to say it's unreasonable for poor people to expect to have a little entertainment in our lives, we should sit in a cold, dark house with nothing to do and feel like lesser human beings for our lack of money.

My husband is largely housebound during the winter, the TV keeps him up to date on things and yes, does entertain him while I'm out looking for work, doing the errands, or on the occasional days I secure some sort of gainful employment. I'm sure it's hard for many people who are better off to understand but yes, losing the TV would be a hardship for him.

[billfish678]

Doesnt Obama have a few more important things to worry about?

Honestly, if he's spent more than a few minutes lately thinking about this issue, I am not impressed.

[atomicbadgerrace]

Of course, I'm sure someone will be by shortly to say it's unreasonable for poor people to expect to have a little entertainment in our lives, we should sit in a cold, dark house with nothing to do and feel like lesser human beings for our lack of money.

That's not at all what was being suggested. Broadcast TV is one of the few free (directly, anyway) sources of entertainment one can enjoy in the home today. For the first time since your initial purchase of the set, you're being asked to purchase a $20-$50 converter to continue enjoying the convenience and entertainment of TV.

That might not be in your entertainment budget. If it's not, then that truly is unfortunate and I'm sorry you may have to go without TV until such a time when your entertainment budget allows it.

I'm sure it's hard for many people who are better off to understand but yes, losing the TV would be a hardship for him.

With all due respect, that's not a hardship -- it's an inconvenience. TV is by no means a necessity, and while the lack thereof may significantly change the way you get your news or entertainment, it is possible to survive and be happy without.

The point is, at some point in time, people are going to get left behind. The change is coming, whether it be in February, May, or months beyond. Delaying the switch is going to end up being more trouble than it's worth -- because inevitably, when that time does come, people are going to cry foul again. People will be unhappy again. It may take some time for your entertainment budget to include the purchase of a converter box, but that's up to you and your financial situation to prioritize.

Perhaps when the switch is made, we'll find the distinction between "can't afford it" and really, truly, honestly can't afford it. Those who "can't afford it" will finally have to buy a converter, and having done so, won't have a need for the coupon they applied for. Theirs will expire, freeing up more to be sent to those who really, truly, honestly can't afford it.

[catsix]

Captain Amazing said:
The converter boxes are relatively expensive, running from $40-80 a pop, and the way the digital conversion works, the only people who need them are the people who get antenna service on an old TV...and most of those are people who can't afford a new tv or cable, which means they're the population least likely to have $40-80 to spend on luxuries.

A one time cost of 40$ can be absorbed by almost anyone, particularly since they have had an entire year to plan for this. There are not too many people with a roof over their heads who cannot manage to put up one dollar a week.

steronz said:
I always figured that the true market price of the converter boxes would be about $40 less than they are now if the coupons didn't exist.

So the 40$ models would have been free?

Broomstick said:
Right now I spend about $500 more a month than I'm bringing in to the household and my savings are nearly gone. Do you think I'm going to buy food... or a converter box?

And you were the one arguing that a driver's license should be more expensive in the same post that you were talking about how you bear the cost of keeping up your pilot license.

So, do you buy food or do you buy airplane time? And why the fuck should I finance a DTV converter box for you?

Of course, I'm sure someone will be by shortly to say it's unreasonable for poor people to expect to have a little entertainment in our lives, we should sit in a cold, dark house with nothing to do and feel like lesser human beings for our lack of money.

Unless you're Rip Van Winkle you knew this one was coming, and you failed to plan ahead. This does not equate to the responsibility of someone else to take care of it for you.

[Jimmy Joe Meager]

Doesnt Obama have a few more important things to worry about?
100% agree.

Here's your "change" folks. Aren't you glad you voted for him now? Recession, war, unemployment, converter boxes. Oh yeah... tackling the tough issue first.

Sorry for the hijack. We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread of virulent outrage over something mostly unimportant. G'day.

[Acsenray]

This whole switchover thing has been a disaster. The government should never have signed off on a plan that required consumers to spend one red cent. Further than that, backwards compatibility should have been mandated, just like in every previous technology change.

[Una Persson]

Sorry, but it really is a rich vs. poor thing.
Sorry right back at you, no, it isn't. I know it's long been fashionable on the SDMB to play the "teh evil rich want to hurt teh poor" card, but I won't play that game.
If you aren't poor, the cost of a converter box probably isn't a big deal, but if you are poor, it is. You can argue about whether they could afford it if they cut this, that and the other out of their lives, but the point is that if you're poor paying that much hurts.
Don't misrepresent my argument. My argument is, in very clear words, what is the inclusion rate needed to implement a national policy on broadcast spectrum use. Your answer seems to be...well, you don't really address my substantive question.

Some people will get left out, and for them it sucks. But that's the case with with every government program, every policy decision, even every single thing in life. I ask yet again, where is the cutoff point? What is the magic inclusion number? And whatever number you pick (other than the impossible 100%), tell me how you will address, exactly, the complaints which will come rolling in about your cutoff point.

And people have known about this for much, much longer than a year.

[Bricker]

So save a dollar a week for a year. Or buy frozen veggies for a month. Or whatever.

Look, you make it clear that you have priorities in life that are higher than maintaining TV reception. That's fine - really - that's your call. But it is your call, your decision, and if it's not that important to you, why should it be important to me?

But television reception is a constitutional right!!!!111!!

[catsix]

But television reception is a constitutional right!!!!111!!

Free speech is a constitutional right, but the government doesn't have to buy you a 30 second spot during the Superbowl, either.

(Yes, I know you were being sarcastic).

[BubbaDog]

Sorry right back at you, no, it isn't. I know it's long been fashionable on the SDMB to play the "teh evil rich want to hurt teh poor" card, but I won't play that game.
...........................

Some people will get left out.....................

So dividing the the country into either rich or poor, which group to you think the most "left outs" will occupy.

And people have known about this for much, much longer than a year.

Yep, so did the manufacturers. Yet less than two years ago, sitting on the shelves of the big box stores were "analog-only" SD TVs. Guess which TV's in the store were the cheapest. And guess which group bought those TVs.

I've never had a TV that wasn't used for at least five years so I'm thinking that this adjustment to new technology hasn't been very well planned and implemented.

I'm all for the new technology. Every TV in my house is equipped for ATSC and my nice fat antenna on my house picks up those digital signals just fine. But I'm in close to a major market broadcast area. If I lived 20 miles farther out from the city my digital reception would be severely limited barring a big investment in a tower antennae. A lot of deep suburb and rural homes are going to have to do a lot more than pay for a converter box. They're going to need to put big money into a new antennae.

And why? To shift the bandwidth from one consumer use to another.

[Sitnam]

I don't believe anyone is entitled to TV therefore this government subsidy program was bullshit to begin with.

[Bosstone]

Doesnt Obama have a few more important things to worry about?

Honestly, if he's spent more than a few minutes lately thinking about this issue, I am not impressed.Look at it cynically. Take the bread and/or circuses from the people and you have a riot on your hands. That's something any politician is going to pause and look at.

[mks57]

This whole switchover thing has been a disaster. The government should never have signed off on a plan that required consumers to spend one red cent. Further than that, backwards compatibility should have been mandated, just like in every previous technology change.

Horse feathers. The government has no obligation to maintain backward compatibility or to compensate people who own equipment that has been made obsolete. Remember FM radio, the first version, promoted by Edwin Armstrong? I used to own a 220 MHz FM two-way radio. Then a bunch of jerks at UPS convinced the FCC to take the band away from the Amateur Radio Service and give it to UPS. The bastards at UPS never used their new band. A huge amount of two-way radio equipment was made obsolete by new FCC rules in the 1960s. The owners of those radios never got a dime in compensation.

[mks57]

Sorry, what? Digital TV transmitters will have significantly smaller coverage footprints due to signal loss. Whereas an analog TV would show some ghosting, snow or static, the digital TV will simply cut out entirely. Either you are getting enough 1s and 0s for the BER correction or you're not.

Second, most of these stations will be transitioning to UHF frequencies. Some will stay VHF. It should be patently clear that for a given transmit power, VHF waves will propagate much further than UHF. There are limited instances where UHF will perform better (especially true in hilly areas), however most transmitters were engineered long ago to deal with this problem (which is simple-- put the transmitting antennas up high).


I've looked through the FCC coverage maps for analog and digital TV. The coverage areas are almost identical. The FCC has computer models that take into account antenna height, location, transmitter power, frequency, etc. See http://www.fcc.gov/dtv/markets/

[Squink]

the government doesn't have to buy you a 30 second spot during the Superbowl, either.BASTARDS! :mad:

[Sateryn76]

That's not at all what was being suggested. Broadcast TV is one of the few free (directly, anyway) sources of entertainment one can enjoy in the home today. For the first time since your initial purchase of the set, you're being asked to purchase a $20-$50 converter to continue enjoying the convenience and entertainment of TV.

That might not be in your entertainment budget. If it's not, then that truly is unfortunate and I'm sorry you may have to go without TV until such a time when your entertainment budget allows it.



With all due respect, that's not a hardship -- it's an inconvenience. TV is by no means a necessity, and while the lack thereof may significantly change the way you get your news or entertainment, it is possible to survive and be happy without.

The point is, at some point in time, people are going to get left behind. The change is coming, whether it be in February, May, or months beyond. Delaying the switch is going to end up being more trouble than it's worth -- because inevitably, when that time does come, people are going to cry foul again. People will be unhappy again. It may take some time for your entertainment budget to include the purchase of a converter box, but that's up to you and your financial situation to prioritize.

Perhaps when the switch is made, we'll find the distinction between "can't afford it" and really, truly, honestly can't afford it. Those who "can't afford it" will finally have to buy a converter, and having done so, won't have a need for the coupon they applied for. Theirs will expire, freeing up more to be sent to those who really, truly, honestly can't afford it.

Well said, and in a much more gentle way than I could have done...

[Procrustus]

I'm not affected by this at all, (love my DirecTV) But, I imagine that whoever is waiting for all this new bandwidth is not even ready to start using it. A few month delay won't cause them any difficulty I venture (without cite or even a good understanding of who "they" are)

[Captain Amazing]

A one time cost of 40$ can be absorbed by almost anyone, particularly since they have had an entire year to plan for this. There are not too many people with a roof over their heads who cannot manage to put up one dollar a week.

Maybe, but it's bad politics to tell people, "Hey, remember TV, which you're used to getting for free? Well, if you've got an old TV, we're going to make you pay $40 for a box so you can keep getting it."

[BubbaDog]

I think the "just can't do it" problem will be as big as the "can't afford it".

That digital signal will not reach as far as the analog one does now.

It will be interesting to find out which rural areas are cut off.

[BubbaDog]

Maybe, but it's bad politics to tell people, "Hey, remember TV, which you're used to getting for free? Well, if you've got an old TV, we're going to make you pay $40 for a box so you can keep getting it."

Old?

Like I mentioned before, two years ago TVs with "analog-only" receivers were sitting on store shelves.

If I may modify your quote -
"Hey, remember TV, which you're used to getting for free? Well, that TV you bought two years ago that gets a great picture with those rabbit ears - we're going to make you pay $40 for a box and $200 for an outdoor antennae so you can keep getting it."

Don't kill yourself trying to install the antennae in February.

[atomicbadgerrace]

"Hey, remember TV, which you're used to getting for free? Well, that TV you bought two years ago that gets a great picture with those rabbit ears - we're going to make you pay $40 for a box and $200 for an outdoor antennae so you can keep getting it."

That's the way it works. It sucks for some people, we've acknowledged that. But by and large, most people in the contrary don't seem to be up in arms about it--nor will they even notice a difference on February 17.

That digital signal will not reach as far as the analog one does now.

It will be interesting to find out which rural areas are cut off.

There's a link upthread to the FCC site, with details on nationwide and local coverage for all markets. In mine, coverage area appears to increase for all affected stations. YMMV, obviously.

[Jenaroph]

100% agree.

Here's your "change" folks. Aren't you glad you voted for him now? Recession, war, unemployment, converter boxes. Oh yeah... tackling the tough issue first.

Sorry for the hijack. We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread of virulent outrage over something mostly unimportant. G'day.
OMG, you're ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! Obama's mention of this TV thing COMPLETELY negates all the positive reasons to vote for him! We're all doomed! By god, I was in agreement with Obama on virtually every important issue but I wish McCain was in office right now. We're almost surely correct in speculating that he NEVER would have wasted a nanosecond thinking about the TV thing.

[fluiddruid]

There are some important issues that have been overlooked here.

1) The coupons have been a bit of a fiasco. I never received mine, and was told they would not be reissued. As such, I had to have a family member (who has cable) to order them for herself so I could get one to actually use. If they expire or you don't receive them, you're SOL.

2) The coupon program has run out of money so people who do actually want to make the switch and can pay the premium on top of the coupon are SOL unless they want to eat the cost of the coupon themselves, when other taxpayers didn't have to.

3) Television service is not just entertainment. Broadcast television is important for emergency situations. Here in the Midwest, having television service is practically a necessity during tornado season; the sirens only go off if a tornado is spotted, but don't tell you where the tornado is, or when it's safe to come out. For access to tornado watches and other weather information, you need radio, TV, or Internet. Radio is increasingly uncommonly used outside of vehicles and cannot stream the information constantly as the internet (which many people still do not have) and TV (through constantly streaming weather information across the bottom of the page, which happens here during any severe weather in the state). Given that people who are in poor housing are disproportionately affected by tornados' danger - think houses without basements, trailers - this is a real concern.

4) We are in the middle of a huge economic crisis. Many people should not, even if they could go without, be paying for converter boxes and possibly new antennas. A six month delay could allow us to, potentially, get out of the crisis and if not, at least solve problems 1) and 2) above if we take the time to fix the coupon program.

[Dead Badger]

100% agree.

Here's your "change" folks. Aren't you glad you voted for him now? Recession, war, unemployment, converter boxes. Oh yeah... tackling the tough issue first.I quite agree. Concerned Americans should demand that their President and his entire staff address only one problem at a time and no more. That is how things get done. This unwarranted and reckless multi-tasking will not stand!

[Gangster Octopus]

Radio is increasingly uncommonly used outside of vehicles

I grew up in Wisconsin, and if you live in the Midwest and you don't have one or two battery operated radios then you are woefully unprepared.

[Gangster Octopus]

Sorry, what? Digital TV transmitters will have significantly smaller coverage footprints due to signal loss. Whereas an analog TV would show some ghosting, snow or static, the digital TV will simply cut out entirely. Either you are getting enough 1s and 0s for the BER correction or you're not.

Second, most of these stations will be transitioning to UHF frequencies. Some will stay VHF. It should be patently clear that for a given transmit power, VHF waves will propagate much further than UHF. There are limited instances where UHF will perform better (especially true in hilly areas), however most transmitters were engineered long ago to deal with this problem (which is simple-- put the transmitting antennas up high).


I am not exactly certain what you mean by digital reception improving-- can you clarify for me?

The problem is that curretnly they are jamming analog and digital signals into the same spectrum. Until analog is gone they cannot optimize the signal.

[Jimmy Joe Meager]

Jenaroph and Dead Badger There are so many things that need attention right now -- war(s), unemployment, recession, aging infrastructure, crime, bailouts, to name but a few -- that, in my humble opinion, who does or does not get their fucking TV signals is so low on the list of priorities as to be negligible. Multitask? The Jews and the Arabs are once again killing each other’s civilians, we're still in up to our knees in Iraq, unemployment is the highest it’s been in 15-ish years, we’re deep in recession, our infrastructure is aging about as well as Tina Louise, the crime rate is... well… there’s never been too little crime now has there?, and everyone and their brother is oinking around the bailout trough. I’d like to see The Chosen One making significant public statements on each of these, along with offering a prescribed course of action (even something as brief as he’s offered for the TV thing), vet and pick his cabinet and key appointees, and then, only THEN, tackle the horrifically difficult issue of who does or does not get their fucking TV signals.

[elmwood]

Sorry, but it really is a rich vs. poor thing. If you aren't poor, the cost of a converter box probably isn't a big deal, but if you are poor, it is. You can argue about whether they could afford it if they cut this, that and the other out of their lives, but the point is that if you're poor paying that much hurts.

If you're struggling to put food on the table for your family or pay the heating bill, a converter box is a significant expense. I'm sure there are people who'd say "Well, if you're that poor then you don't have the luxury to worry about watching T.V." But life is hard enough when you're poor. How quick would you be to give up one of the few forms of entertainment you can reasonably afford?

Why didn't these people get coupons earlier, when they could have gotten $40 off a converter box that sells for $45 to $60? I admit to chronic procrastination, but I applied for coupons as soon as the program went live, and bought my converters a month or so later, during a time when I was unemployed and struggling. (One is on a small CRT NTSC TV in my old bedroom at my parents' house, which I use when I'm visiting; the other ... well, I've got it just in case.)

If they're so poor, how did they manage to afford a television set to begin with? Years ago a used 19" mid-end NTSC CRT color television cost $50 or so at a typical thrift store. If they were able to purchased a used television, or even a new set (NTSC CRT televisions were quite inexpensive when they still filled store shelves a few years ago; sometimes under $100 for a 19" set on sake), why not a converter? I'll admit the market for used HDTV sets is dysfunctional; their owners tend not to part with them for that much less than what they paid initially, and on Craigslist it's the norm to see used HDTV sets selling for more than new models. Old CRT-based HDTV sets and newer CRTs with ATSC tuners haven't appeared on the second-hand market, from what I've seen.

Aside from eccentric Luddites and little old ladies who still have rabbit ears attached to their 25" Zenith Chromacolor Bicentennial Edition console so they can watch their "stories" and judge shows, how many of those complaining about not being able to afford the conversion have cell phones? How often do they swap their phones out for the newest model? Was there this kind of wailing and gnashing of teeth when analog cell phone service went dark a couple of years ago, with complaints about lack of service and the cost of having to buy one of them there newfangled GSM phones to replace their Motorola brick?

Rushgeekgirl, send me a PM with your mailing address. I'll mail you my spare converter, no charge.

[mswas]

The government shouldn't be subsidizing the switch at all. It should just be a switch over and people should have to handle it themselves. It's criminal that taxpayer money is funding people's ability to watch TV.

[Una Persson]

First off, thank you for being one of the few people to actually address the core issue.
1) The coupons have been a bit of a fiasco. I never received mine, and was told they would not be reissued. As such, I had to have a family member (who has cable) to order them for herself so I could get one to actually use. If they expire or you don't receive them, you're SOL.

2) The coupon program has run out of money so people who do actually want to make the switch and can pay the premium on top of the coupon are SOL unless they want to eat the cost of the coupon themselves, when other taxpayers didn't have to.
The problems with the coupons are a valid point, but as far as the overall point of how we as a technological society decide when to upgrade our infrastructure, I'm not sure it changes anything. I'm certain that with any program people will not take advantage of it one way or another. Case in point - as of November, there were well more than a quarter million stimulus checks still unclaimed by folks - free money, and it's fallen through the cracks.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/28/news/economy/stim_check/index.htm?postversion=2008112810

In short, that sucks, but it's also not unexpected.

Radio is increasingly uncommonly used outside of vehicles and cannot stream the information constantly as the internet (which many people still do not have) and TV (through constantly streaming weather information across the bottom of the page, which happens here during any severe weather in the state). Given that people who are in poor housing are disproportionately affected by tornados' danger - think houses without basements, trailers - this is a real concern.
I must respectfully question your implied premise of whether or not radio is unavailable to folks (you say uncommonly used, which I do agree with. But I do not believe it is actually unavailable, which seems implied).

4) We are in the middle of a huge economic crisis. Many people should not, even if they could go without, be paying for converter boxes and possibly new antennas. A six month delay could allow us to, potentially, get out of the crisis and if not, at least solve problems 1) and 2) above if we take the time to fix the coupon program.
With every indication being, from Obama himself, that this crisis will last well into 2010 and beyond, my opinion is that in six months exactly the same number of people would be protesting this on the SDMB (and very few additional converter boxes would be bought). Whereas the sale and utilization of the freed-up radio spectrum may ironically spur economic growth and result in a net positive for the country.

[Acsenray]

Horse feathers. The government has no obligation to maintain backward compatibility or to compensate people who own equipment that has been made obsolete. Remember FM radio, the first version, promoted by Edwin Armstrong? I used to own a 220 MHz FM two-way radio. Then a bunch of jerks at UPS convinced the FCC to take the band away from the Amateur Radio Service and give it to UPS. The bastards at UPS never used their new band. A huge amount of two-way radio equipment was made obsolete by new FCC rules in the 1960s. The owners of those radios never got a dime in compensation.

The fact that the government arguably made a mistake in the past doesn't persuade me that they should make a similar mistake -- of a much greater -- magnitude now.

[elmwood]

Horse feathers. The government has no obligation to maintain backward compatibility or to compensate people who own equipment that has been made obsolete. Remember FM radio, the first version, promoted by Edwin Armstrong? I used to own a 220 MHz FM two-way radio. Then a bunch of jerks at UPS convinced the FCC to take the band away from the Amateur Radio Service and give it to UPS. The bastards at UPS never used their new band. A huge amount of two-way radio equipment was made obsolete by new FCC rules in the 1960s. The owners of those radios never got a dime in compensation.

I was just going to mention that. Did these people get compensated?

* Americans who bought Apex 25-44 MHz AM band and Armstrong 42–50 MHz FM band radios in the 1930s and 1940s, when those broadcast bands were abandoned for FM at 88-108 MHz in the late 1940s?

* Anyone who still used an analog brick cell phone when AMPS went dark?

* Anyone with cars built in the 1960s through the 1980s with AM-only radios who wanted to listen to music while they drove?

* Those in Eastern European countries that switched from SECAM to PAL television, or from the OIRT 65-74 MHz FM band to the 88-108 MHz band?

* Japanese analog MUSE HDTV owners?

* Those driving cars made before the early 1970s when leaded gasoline became unavailable?

[Zeriel]

Not that this really affects me, but if one looks at the coverage maps for my area (Central PA), one sees HUGE swatches of red and orange in the mountainous areas--it really highlights how sub-optimal digital TV is for elevated areas and ridgelines.

elmwood, my man, two things:
1) There are a lot more people a LOT worse off than they were even a year ago--how many people like Broomstick do you think there are, who bought a good TV and lost their job in the last year?

2) I don't know where you're from, but where I'm from a TV lasts a while. I got rid of my 12-year-old set a few years ago because it was physically broken due to random acts of cat (snapped off the coax connector, don't ask). My point is, there are people with perfectly good televisions that are a decade or more old, and how can you predict what their economic situation was vs. is and say if they have a worthwhile TV they should be able to afford a converter?

For your later post, I say this: If the government actively makes a spectrum unavailable, then they share some duty in making the owners of obsolete tech bought before the switchover plans be able to bring themselves up to current standards. This goes especially if the spectrum being made unavailable is not necessarily technically superior (see also my previous statement about the analog vs. digital coverage in my area).

[Bridget Burke]

....With every indication being, from Obama himself, that this crisis will last well into 2010 and beyond, my opinion is that in six months exactly the same number of people would be protesting this on the SDMB (and very few additional converter boxes would be bought). Whereas the sale and utilization of the freed-up radio spectrum may ironically spur economic growth and result in a net positive for the country.

What specific benefits will we all be seeing from the "freed-up radio spectrum"?

When? (Well--how long after the big switch happens.)

[elmwood]

1) There are a lot more people a LOT worse off than they were even a year ago--how many people like Broomstick do you think there are, who bought a good TV and lost their job in the last year?

Me. I got my converter coupons, paid about $20 for two converters, and later landed a job. I finally bought an ATSC HDTV set last week.

2) I don't know where you're from, but where I'm from a TV lasts a while.

Same thing where I've lived. You can't kill 12" black-and-white television sets made during the 1970s, apparently, and a good percentage of color CRT televisions made since the 1980s will last for decades into the future.

Thing is, months ago, people could have gotten converter boxes for $10 or less after using a coupon. As now, there were constant PSAs about the program; once if not several times on every show on every channel.

That being said, I've got a converter box with remote (Insignia; the Best Buy house brand), that I'm willing to send to any Doper in legitimate need who didn't get one earlier; you're poor, you have a NTSC television that cannot natively receive ATSC signals, you don't have cable or satellite television, you don't have a working converter in your possession, and you can't get a coupon now. I'm a procrastinator too, so I have some sympathy.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Look at it cynically. Take the bread and/or circuses from the people and you have a riot on.

Or worse, they could start reading.

[zenith]

Interesting that a Republican administration that keeps blaming the recession on us consumers' mindless materialism the resultant profligate misuse of credit wants us all to trash perfectly-good TVs and buy expensive equipment and antennae that would be unneeded had the Administration not whored themselves to the Chinese(the manufacturers of nearly 100% of these digital TVs and converters) and Big Telecom.

[Una Persson]

The best data I can find says nationwide, 6.8% of households as of the start of December were "completely unready": http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/media_entertainment/digital-transition-unready-us-homes-decline-in-december/

However, I have read criticism that the Nielsen results have a high margin of error in them due largely to the technical ignorance of the average American. Here are some examples of that last point:

http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/core_telecom_and_utilities/005383.html

Reputedly, there are a significant number of folks who may actually be DTV-ready, and just don't realize it yet. And as I said, that's not stupidity, it's ignorance. I've heard more than one Engineer I work with here state over the year that they're "scared they'll have to buy an HDTV" even though they have a satellite dish or cable, and never watch broadcast TV. One here bought a converter box for...wait for it... their HDTV. The mind boggles.

I have no citation handy, but I have come across statements while researching this believing the *true* number of unready households may be just under 3% at this point in time. Make of that unsubstantiated claim what you will.

[Sarahfeena]

And you were the one arguing that a driver's license should be more expensive in the same post that you were talking about how you bear the cost of keeping up your pilot license.

So, do you buy food or do you buy airplane time? And why the fuck should I finance a DTV converter box for you? I have to admit, Broomstick, your stance on these issues doesn't seem to make sense to me, either. You want the government to make it harder and more expensive (a lot more expensive, as I recall) to get & maintain a driver's license, which many, many people need in order to be employed (including you, I'm sure, considering where you live), and at the same time, you think the government should make it easier and cheaper to watch television? I don't get the logic.

[Duke]

I'm still scratching my head over why the switchover to digital TV is so gosh-darned important that analog TV has to be shut down. The relevant Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_television_transition) article states three "advantages" to the handover: Potentially higher image and sound quality over analogue broadcast (though in practice it can be worse).
Freeing radio spectrum space, which can then be auctioned off for other purposes.
Multiplexed subchannels—which can carry entirely separate programming.
Point 1 seems like a toss-up to me. People who still get TV through an antenna (i.e., the ones most likely to still be using analog) will apparently often be getting worse picture due to multi-path interference ("http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_television#Effects_of_poor_reception). Point 3 sounds good, but my experience with multiplexed subchannels is that it's all hype and little substance: "Shop on TV" and that kind of crap.

That leaves Point 2. Guess it really is all about the money, then.

[Giraffe]

I’d like to see The Chosen One making significant public statements on each of these, along with offering a prescribed course of action (even something as brief as he’s offered for the TV thing), vet and pick his cabinet and key appointees, and then, only THEN, tackle the horrifically difficult issue of who does or does not get their fucking TV signals.Oh, please. A good leader does not put every non-critical issue on hold indefinitely when faced with critical issues. Moreover, you have no evidence that this action in any way slowed, delayed or diminished the Obama administration's actions on any of the major issues you mentioned.

And your tone makes me suspect that Obama could shit a pile of gold bricks big enough to pay off the national debt and you'd bitch about his squatting posture.

[catsix]

Captain Amazing said:
Maybe, but it's bad politics to tell people, "Hey, remember TV, which you're used to getting for free? Well, if you've got an old TV, we're going to make you pay $40 for a box so you can keep getting it."

You never got TV for free. You had to buy a TV, didn't you?

elmwood said:
* Anyone with cars built in the 1960s through the 1980s with AM-only radios who wanted to listen to music while they drove?

My first car was a 1982 Chevette with AM only radio. I didn't get a coupon for a reduced price FM radio from the government. I just lived without radio.

Una Persson said:
Reputedly, there are a significant number of folks who may actually be DTV-ready, and just don't realize it yet. And as I said, that's not stupidity, it's ignorance. I've heard more than one Engineer I work with here state over the year that they're "scared they'll have to buy an HDTV" even though they have a satellite dish or cable, and never watch broadcast TV. One here bought a converter box for...wait for it... their HDTV. The mind boggles.

This is true. There are Comcast customers (I say Comcast, because I have Comcast and I see their PSAs) who, despite the Comcast PSAs that run at least once every half hour, seem to be completely unaware that they are already prepared for the DTV switchover. The PSA's message is 'Don't worry about the change to digital TV. You have cable, and do not need to do anything to prepare.'

Regardless, you are absolutely right that during any change over from one technology to another, someone will be left behind. I think we have reached an acceptable level of 'someone'.

[Sateryn76]

I'm still scratching my head over why the switchover to digital TV is so gosh-darned important that analog TV has to be shut down. The relevant Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_television_transition) article states three "advantages" to the handover:
Point 1 seems like a toss-up to me. People who still get TV through an antenna (i.e., the ones most likely to still be using analog) will apparently often be getting worse picture due to multi-path interference ("http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_television#Effects_of_poor_reception). Point 3 sounds good, but my experience with multiplexed subchannels is that it's all hype and little substance: "Shop on TV" and that kind of crap.

That leaves Point 2. Guess it really is all about the money, then.

Not money - it is a waste of resources. And in this ecconomic climate, resources of all kinds are at a premium.

Why not take advantage of it?

[Jimmy Joe Meager]

And your tone makes me suspect that Obama could shit a pile of gold bricks big enough to pay off the national debt and you'd bitch about his squatting posture.
No different than the Bushophobes around here who take any and every occasion to yammer on about how EEEEEVIL!! <sniff> Bush is, how everything from global warming to the Bratz dolls was his fault, etc. etc. etc.

Now that it's your sacred cow that's getting tweaked you're all high and mighty and offended by it.

My posts are my opinion directly related to the topic at hand. In fact, the title of this thread implores His Highness to "STFU about DTV". I was agreeing, and further opined that He should focus on more important things. So no... I'm not trolling. Although, admittedly, I did choose to refer to a political figure in an unflattering way -- as is the wont of many people here.

But as I was composing my posts I was thinking "Gosh... I wonder if the constant Bush-bashers around here can take as well as they dish out?" And Giraffe... you stood up loud and stood up proud to declare "No! We can't!"

[Giraffe]

But as I was composing my posts I was thinking "Gosh... I wonder if the constant Bush-bashers around here can take as well as they dish out?" And Giraffe... you stood up loud and stood up proud to declare "No! We can't!"What does Bush have to do with anything? You said something stupid, and I disagreed. If you're acting stupid because other people acted stupid in the past, well, good for you. You'll show them all.

[Duke]

Not money - it is a waste of resources. And in this ecconomic climate, resources of all kinds are at a premium.

Why not take advantage of it?

Whose resources are they, and who is making the money?

[MsWhatsit]

No different than the Bushophobes around here who take any and every occasion to yammer on about how EEEEEVIL!! <sniff> Bush is, how everything from global warming to the Bratz dolls was his fault, etc. etc. etc.

Yes; you both suck equally. Congratulations.

[Sateryn76]

Whose resources are they, and who is making the money?

From Wiki:

"In the United States, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) conducts auctions of licenses for electromagnetic spectrum. The FCC has been conducting competitive auctions since 1994 rather than assigning spectrum through comparative hearings (under which the specific merits of each applicant is litigated), or through lotteries. FCC spectrum auctions are open to any company or individual that is determined by the Commission to be a qualified bidder."

So, initailly, our cash strapped government makes some money. Then, the owners of those new licenses will use them to create profit, use that profit to employ people, people use that income to buy widgets, the wiget people use that income to....... etc., etc.

ETA: Per Wiki, the auction of the analog stations in the 700 Mhz range netted $19.592 billon. link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_2008_wireless_spectrum_auction)

[Jimmy Joe Meager]

What does Bush have to do with anything? You said something stupid, and I disagreed.
Yes, AND you included a snarky little comment about my "tone". It was that little comeback that I was referring to when I pointed out that...

"Gosh... I wonder if the constant Bush-bashers around here can take as well as they dish out?" And Giraffe... you stood up loud and stood up proud to declare "No! We can't!"

[Bridget Burke]

...This is true. There are Comcast customers (I say Comcast, because I have Comcast and I see their PSAs) who, despite the Comcast PSAs that run at least once every half hour, seem to be completely unaware that they are already prepared for the DTV switchover. The PSA's message is 'Don't worry about the change to digital TV. You have cable, and do not need to do anything to prepare.'.....

Until a natural disaster takes down Comcast. I lost power, cable & high-speed Internet when Hurricane Ike blew through Houston. Luckily, my power came back the next day. My Comcast was down for a week, but I was able to watch local TV through my little antenna.

I procrastinated about getting a coupon & may have to pay full price for a converter for the kitchen TV. No big problem. (Getting another cable line would be cheap--but I don't want to depend on Comcast 100%.)

What's a minor convenience for me will be a major one for some people. Who make less than the median income here at the SDMB. So they don't matter, I guess.

Could somebody please tell me what wonderful technical advances will come after the big switch? Something really impressive, please!

Edited to add a question to Sateryn76: What specific ventures can you envision?

[Jimmy Joe Meager]

Yes; you both suck equally. Congratulations.

YES!!! I have been equated with Giraffe!!

Thank you MsWhatsit, my work here is done. Good day and God bless to you all.

[gurujulp]

Sorry, but it really is a rich vs. poor thing. If you aren't poor, the cost of a converter box probably isn't a big deal, but if you are poor, it is. You can argue about whether they could afford it if they cut this, that and the other out of their lives, but the point is that if you're poor paying that much hurts.

If you're struggling to put food on the table for your family or pay the heating bill, a converter box is a significant expense. I'm sure there are people who'd say "Well, if you're that poor then you don't have the luxury to worry about watching T.V." But life is hard enough when you're poor. How quick would you be to give up one of the few forms of entertainment you can reasonably afford?

I am not poor. I have a digital television. I don't watch it. The fact that it has a receiver at all is a non-issue for me. It certainly does have better reception and more channels, but who cares? I won't watch anything with commercials. I use it as an HD monitor.

I read for entertainment. It's free with a library card, though I do purchase books.

If you rely that heavily on television, there is an issue in itself. And again, you can always listen to a radio in an emergency. I would welcome the return of dramatic radio.

The reason I want them to continue with the switch is that I want those freqs open to cell phone tech - I wanna be able to make a call stranded in the snow in the mountains with two flat tires. The increase in reception to cell phones will save many more than not having a television will kill.

[gurujulp]

Old?

Like I mentioned before, two years ago TVs with "analog-only" receivers were sitting on store shelves.

If I may modify your quote -
"Hey, remember TV, which you're used to getting for free? Well, that TV you bought two years ago that gets a great picture with those rabbit ears - we're going to make you pay $40 for a box and $200 for an outdoor antennae so you can keep getting it."

Don't kill yourself trying to install the antennae in February.

I am curious- I had some reception issues on the new dtv I installed, so out of curiousity I plugged in an old rabbit-ear I had, and it juiced the dtv signal up fine. Why would you need a new antenna?

ETA:Oh, and no I don't use it, but anyone wants to play with a new toy...

[MsWhatsit]

YES!!! I have been equated with Giraffe!!

Thank you MsWhatsit, my work here is done. Good day and God bless to you all.

No, you haven't. Sorry to rain on your parade, dude.

[Duke]

ETA: Per Wiki, the auction of the analog stations in the 700 Mhz range netted $19.592 billon. link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_2008_wireless_spectrum_auction)

Well, damn, nearly $20 billion should have been much, much more than enough to buy converter boxes for the relatively small number of people who needed them, right?

[The Tao's Revenge]

I am curious- I had some reception issues on the new dtv I installed, so out of curiousity I plugged in an old rabbit-ear I had, and it juiced the dtv signal up fine. Why would you need a new antenna?

ETA:Oh, and no I don't use it, but anyone wants to play with a new toy...

QFT. Hell analog signal amplifiers seem to work on DTV in my experiance. The old $20 dollar radioshack amplifier, bit rusty in places, looks a bit odd wired into my shiny modern desktop computer's dtv usb stick; yet it works.

[Una Persson]

I'm still scratching my head over why the switchover to digital TV is so gosh-darned important that analog TV has to be shut down. The relevant Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_television_transition) article states three "advantages" to the handover:
Point 1 seems like a toss-up to me. People who still get TV through an antenna (i.e., the ones most likely to still be using analog) will apparently often be getting worse picture due to multi-path interference ("http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_television#Effects_of_poor_reception). Point 3 sounds good, but my experience with multiplexed subchannels is that it's all hype and little substance: "Shop on TV" and that kind of crap.

That leaves Point 2. Guess it really is all about the money, then.
You're right, a large part of it does come down to money. But not money in a vacuum, hopefully money that creates jobs and builds infrastructure (something Obama is pushing from a generic standpoint).

Here's a document I got from Joltin' Joe's office: http://lieberman.senate.gov/documents/crs/digitaltv.pdf

It lists the following possibilities:
* Improved wireless internet (including, IIRC, city-wide Wi-Fi, which could benefit all the folks without broadband, and facilitate city-planned measures to roll out wireless net access to lower income folks).
* A specific bandwidth allocation for service-plan free mobile phones (which could also benefit low-income folks).
* 24 MHz of new frequencies for public safety use, meaning police, fire, EMT, etc. Which also benefit people in general. IIRC there is a study on how the use of this frequency band would help first responders get a better signal in dense urban areas, like New York City.

[fluiddruid]

First off, thank you for being one of the few people to actually address the core issue.

The problems with the coupons are a valid point, but as far as the overall point of how we as a technological society decide when to upgrade our infrastructure, I'm not sure it changes anything. I'm certain that with any program people will not take advantage of it one way or another. Case in point - as of November, there were well more than a quarter million stimulus checks still unclaimed by folks - free money, and it's fallen through the cracks.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/28/news/economy/stim_check/index.htm?postversion=2008112810

In short, that sucks, but it's also not unexpected.I don't disagree with you here. I don't think we should, or realistically could, wait for everyone to adopt new technology. However, I do feel that people should have ample opportunity to adopt the new technology, and I think it is fair to say that if they have been promised a coupon towards said technology, it is unfair to withdraw that offer. That's effectively what has happened to many people. I think extending the adoption period only is appropriate in this case because of the extenuating circumstances with the coupon program. Otherwise, I'm all for cutting it off now.

Incidentally, these problems are not new (http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2008/04/dtv_coupons.html) and have been largely ignored.I must respectfully question your implied premise of whether or not radio is unavailable to folks (you say uncommonly used, which I do agree with. But I do not believe it is actually unavailable, which seems implied).I did not mean to imply this, but rather to indicate that it is increasingly uncommon in homes (as music/entertainment devices more and more frequently do not include radio capabilities) and that it is less valuable a source than TV.
With every indication being, from Obama himself, that this crisiswill last well into 2010 and beyond, my opinion is that in six months exactly the same number of people would be protesting this on the SDMB (and very few additional converter boxes would be bought). Whereas the sale and utilization of the freed-up radio spectrum may ironically spur economic growth and result in a net positive for the country.I'm not convinced that sale of the spectrum will necessarily be a positive for taxpayers. Right now, they have a free source of entertainment that is accessed by many people. If we take that away and leave people in the lurch, they haven't benefited. Perhaps you're right, though.

I do agree we're likely to see the crisis as an ongoing issue, but I point it out to help indicate why the coupon program is so important in order to get the most affected individuals to the current technology.

$10, the cost of a Wal-Mart converter minus the coupon, is much more feasible to many families than $50, and $40 can buy quite a bit of food, or sustain cell phone coverage for a month or more (frequently used by the poor due to frequent moves or lack of a permanent residence, and you need a phone if looking for work).

I'm not saying we need to put our heads in the sand about the conversion until we solve all of our other problems. I just favor a delay in order to handle our real problems with the conversion itself and to help people to get what they have been promised.

[Jenaroph]

No different than the Bushophobes around here who take any and every occasion to yammer on about how EEEEEVIL!! <sniff> Bush is, how everything from global warming to the Bratz dolls was his fault, etc. etc. etc.

{snip}

But as I was composing my posts I was thinking "Gosh... I wonder if the constant Bush-bashers around here can take as well as they dish out?" And Giraffe... you stood up loud and stood up proud to declare "No! We can't!"
Congratulations, you're as petty and immature as people you claim to turn up your nose at. I'm sure you're very proud of yourself. Go tell all your friends. They'll be amazed and awestruck at your madz intarwebz debatingz skillz.

[Giraffe]

Yes, AND you included a snarky little comment about my "tone". It was that little comeback that I was referring to when I pointed out that...The best thing about your comeback was that it perfectly confirmed what I initially suspected based on your tone: for you, it's all about scoring stupid little partisan points. You hold Obama to a completely different standard than you would someone who was on your team. When called on the thinking behind what you wrote, you have nothing to offer except comparisons to why your behavior is similar to what some other members of the other team once did. It adds nothing to a discussion, and is about as interesting as listening to a tattling seven year old.

To be clear, I could care less if you bitch about Obama. Just try to do it in a non-embarrassing way.

[Duke]

It lists the following possibilities:
* Improved wireless internet (including, IIRC, city-wide Wi-Fi, which could benefit all the folks without broadband, and facilitate city-planned measures to roll out wireless net access to lower income folks).
* A specific bandwidth allocation for service-plan free mobile phones (which could also benefit low-income folks).
* 24 MHz of new frequencies for public safety use, meaning police, fire, EMT, etc. Which also benefit people in general. IIRC there is a study on how the use of this frequency band would help first responders get a better signal in dense urban areas, like New York City.

Well, we'll believe these when we see them. Citywide free wifi in particular has fallen short of promises more often than not in the past.

[Captain Amazing]

Well, damn, nearly $20 billion should have been much, much more than enough to buy converter boxes for the relatively small number of people who needed them, right?

The budget process doesn't work that way. The FCC doesn't get to keep the $20 billion it raises from the auction. Instead, that money goes into the US treasury to pay for Social Security, the Iraq War and auto bailouts, and the FCC has to have money from the Treasury assigned to it each year by the budget process.

[The Tao's Revenge]

Count me in the group that welcomes this delay. There's channels that are just unwatchable in digital without major antenna tweaking, yet perfectly watchable in analog around here. When analog goes I either lose those channels or have to fix the rotor. Not cheap, and not safe in the winter. It's on the steep roof.

[Una Persson]

Well, we'll believe these when we see them. Citywide free wifi in particular has fallen short of promises more often than not in the past.
Well, wouldn't you agree that there's sort of a chicken and egg thing here? The bandwidth has to be available first before someone commits to doing anything about it in this economy with credit so uncertain.

And sure, there's no guarantees.

[Dead Badger]

Jenaroph and Dead Badger There are so many things that need attention right now...Goodness me, all that stuff you mention sounds terrible! Why isn't anyone doing anything about all those things? I'm all a-quiver, I tell you. And it certainly isn't possible that Obama could be working on plans for those things while one of his aides is thinking about something else. It's quite literally unthinkable, as I myself am currently thinking about something else.

Maybe some kind of "Vice" President is in order, to deal with all the shit that's not of cosmic significance. After all, we didn't elect the guy to run the whole country, right?

I'll be plenty peeved if he tries to tackle education before curing cancer, I can tell you. Priorities, priorities.

[Una Persson]

I don't disagree with you here. I don't think we should, or realistically could, wait for everyone to adopt new technology. However, I do feel that people should have ample opportunity to adopt the new technology, and I think it is fair to say that if they have been promised a coupon towards said technology, it is unfair to withdraw that offer. That's effectively what has happened to many people. I think extending the adoption period only is appropriate in this case because of the extenuating circumstances with the coupon program. Otherwise, I'm all for cutting it off now.
What if we allow people to deduct the cost of a converter, up to $40, from their taxes? Would that option convince you more to keep the current deadline?

[mack]

Can someone explain exactly what the benefit is of stopping analog transmission? I've seen a few vague references to "the bandwidth is needed for other purposes," but I am unclear on what purposes.

As the nation transitions from analog to digital, NTIA will also help enable first responders -- our firefighters and police officers -- to employ designated frequencies to improve their communications, thereby better protecting communities when emergencies arise.
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/otiahome/dtv/index.html

for one....

[SomeUserName]

Count me in the group that welcomes this delay. There's channels that are just unwatchable in digital without major antenna tweaking, yet perfectly watchable in analog around here. When analog goes I either lose those channels or have to fix the rotor. Not cheap, and not safe in the winter. It's on the steep roof.

This shit is were I am at too.

I ordered my coupon/card early and got them both. I used them at Radio Shack and got two $59.99 boxes at $19.99 each plus tax. I am not sure if they are a better model or a piece of crap, I would not know about such things. They do have a remote but I don't know if that means anything. I did try at Walmart first but they had been sold out for weeks and that was over six months ago.

The thing that pissed me off is that I lose four channels by using the converter box. Only two channels that I got before are improved. The rest work sometimes on digital but are choppy/pixilated or they just lose the signal all together in the middle of a program. With Analog unless the power went out I was sure to get all the available channels to watch.

Now from what I understand having a digital TV would not mean jack shit. I would still get the same results which suck.

[Broomstick]

That might not be in your entertainment budget. If it's not, then that truly is unfortunate and I'm sorry you may have to go without TV until such a time when your entertainment budget allows it.
Uh, right, I couldn't possibly have figured that out for myself....:rolleyes:

With all due respect, that's not a hardship -- it's an inconvenience. TV is by no means a necessity, and while the lack thereof may significantly change the way you get your news or entertainment, it is possible to survive and be happy without.
Right. As I said, my husband's vision has deteriorated. That leaves either TV or radio for getting news and entertainment. When you're able bodied, able to see well, hear well, and your hands work right you have a lot more options for entertainment and information. My husband... not so much. Seriously, they don't have a large print edition of the newspaper, ya know?

[Broomstick]

And you were the one arguing that a driver's license should be more expensive in the same post that you were talking about how you bear the cost of keeping up your pilot license.

So, do you buy food or do you buy airplane time? And why the fuck should I finance a DTV converter box for you?
Once again, we bump up against the incomprehension that I have not always been poor. Two years ago I was making $50k a year. A little over a year ago I was laid off. Since then I have been poor. And no, I haven't flown or rented an airplane for a year and a half. Are you happy now? Is it really that hard for you to understand that this poverty is a RECENT phenomena? I, like hundreds of thousands of other people, was laid off and have not found steady employment since. The fact I lost my health insurance but still have to pay a couple hundred a month for my husband's medication out of pocket so he can stay alive only makes the situation worse.

Yes, I have a pilot's license. I was not required to hand it in when I dropped below the poverty line. I have not used it recently because that was the very first thing cut out of the budget. Indeed, I stopped flying several months before I was officially laid off because I knew it was coming and I put that money in the bank.

So, to answer your question - I buy food before airplane time. I pay the rent before airplane time. I buy my husband's medication before airplane time. In fact, I do everything else before airplane you judgmental jerk.

Unless you're Rip Van Winkle you knew this one was coming, and you failed to plan ahead. This does not equate to the responsibility of someone else to take care of it for you.
Right. I planned to be unemployed for 15 months. Right. Tell me, are YOU able to live primarily off savings for that long, as I have done? If you can't, positively, answer "yes" to that then go to hell. Frankly, two years ago we planned to buy a brand new TV with digital tuner built in, but, oh darn, management decided to let a bunch of us go. And then the economy tanked. 'Scuze me if I've had a few things on my mind in the meanwhile. Trust me, I did not intend to be in this position.

Finance a DTV box for me? No, you're under no obligation to do so. As I said, I'd be happy to delay the switch over because that would benefit me and mine. On the other hand, if somone offers to subsidize something like that for me I'd be an idiot not to take advantage of it, wouldn't I?

[Broomstick]

If they're so poor, how did they manage to afford a television set to begin with?
Because not everyone who is poor today was poor last year. A lot of people have dropped out of the middle class into poverty the past year or two, including myself.

Seriously, guys, if I was making even as much as $20k a year I'd go out and buy a damn converter box and screw the coupons. They should have been reserved for those who truly can't afford it, followed by those who nearly couldn't afford it, and so on.

The fact is, I'm housing and feeding two people on an income that would be below poverty for just one person. If the damn coupon doesn't show up in my mailbox then I'm just not going to have TV when the conversion happens, at least not until I get steady work. I'll live with it, but don't demand I jump up and down and be happy about it.

[fluiddruid]

What if we allow people to deduct the cost of a converter, up to $40, from their taxes? Would that option convince you more to keep the current deadline?A tax deduction is not the same as having the money actually in hand. Further, for the poor, many of them are not paying taxes anyway, so it'd be meaningless.

If we just cut $40 checks, though, people'd request it who didn't need converter boxes, and those that did need the boxes probably would spend it on something else anyway. Hence we're right back at doing the coupon.

The only alternate I can see is giving the converter boxes away wholly, but just having an income requirement. I'd find this acceptable.

[Broomstick]

I have to admit, Broomstick, your stance on these issues doesn't seem to make sense to me, either. You want the government to make it harder and more expensive (a lot more expensive, as I recall) to get & maintain a driver's license, which many, many people need in order to be employed (including you, I'm sure, considering where you live), and at the same time, you think the government should make it easier and cheaper to watch television? I don't get the logic.
I actually would rather make it easier to get to work without a car, that is, fund mass transit. As it happens, I live in an area that does have mass transit. When I lived actually IN Chicago I never needed a car to get to work for over 20 years. As it is, when I have been able to find work (temporary) over the past year about half the time I have not needed a car to get to work then, either. So, in fact, I could (and have) lived quite well without a car.

Do I think the government is obliged to make TV watching easier/cheaper? Not in an absolute sense, no. However, in this instance promises were made in regards to subsidizing adapters that have not been kept. Truthfully, would have been better to not subsidize at all than to make and break promises. I would not be bitching half so much if my coupons had shown up. But now I'm told that if they don't show up, tough cookies. I don't even have the option of getting on a waiting list - I had my chance apparently and since the post office didn't get them to me, too bad. That's a little screw up, too.

[Broomstick]

What if we allow people to deduct the cost of a converter, up to $40, from their taxes? Would that option convince you more to keep the current deadline?
What if you're not making enough to pay taxes? That would, indeed, be a group who could argue about affordability.

[Una Persson]

What if you're not making enough to pay taxes? That would, indeed, be a group who could argue about affordability.
Fair enough...if someone's not paying taxes then that's obviously a non-starter.

Then I guess we get back to my original question from Page 1, which is quite simply where is the new deadline set, and how is that new deadline defended from criticism. Since no one will agree on this and folks think I'm just trying to kick poor people while they're down, rather than argue the academic technology policy issue, I guess there's not much point in discussing it on the SDMB.

[Liberal]

A tax credit, as opposed to a deduction, would work even if they don't pay taxes. Actually, a deduction wouldn't even be a reimbursement for tax payers.

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

But television reception is a constitutional right!!!!111!!Not a Constitutional right, of course, but a right nonetheless.

The American people, each and every one of them (not just taxpayers), own the airwaves in this country. Yes, even after the media corporations bribed, pleaded with, and threatened Congress to jam through the (Corporate) Telecommunications Act of 1994 in order to rape and pillage those rights as far as they were able to in the name of corporate profits. Yet somehow, amazingly, the spirit of the Communications Act of 1934 wasn't completely dismantled.

So you better believe we have a right to receive the airwaves that we own. That doesn't mean we have a right to free HDTV plasma displays or somesuch, but when the government fundamentally alters the technology needed to receive our airwaves, then it is appropriate for the Feds to help make it possible for the owners of the airwaves to receive those airwaves.

[catsix]

Broomstick said:
Right. I planned to be unemployed for 15 months. Right. Tell me, are YOU able to live primarily off savings for that long, as I have done

I could live entirely off of the money I already have put away for two years with my current lifestyle. I could probably stretch it if I got real frugal.

As I said, I'd be happy to delay the switch over because that would benefit me and mine.

And I'm perfectly happy with it going on as planned. It's been in the works so long that the A in ATSC might as well stand for Ancient.

So, to answer your question - I buy food before airplane time. I pay the rent before airplane time. I buy my husband's medication before airplane time. In fact, I do everything else before airplane you judgmental jerk.

I'm not about to apologize for questioning the wisdom of someone who thinks a driver's license should be as expensive and time consuming to obtain as a pilot's license, and then in the next breath whines that TV is too expensive.

Excuse me, lady, but your priorities need a lot of work.

I, like hundreds of thousands of other people, was laid off and have not found steady employment since.

Considering that you manage to surf your way here every day, but haven't figured out that newspapers have classified ads online, including job postings, I'm not surprised you haven't found work.

After reading the other thread, I'm rather sick of your constant whine that the reason you have been unemployed so long has nothing whatever to do with your own incompetence at finding a job.

So, in fact, I could (and have) lived quite well without a car.

And yet you were just posting recently in a pit thread about your unemployment that you couldn't afford to buy newspapers because you have to pay for gas to get to the unemployment office.

So, which line of 'woe is me' are we supposed to be buying here?

[jtgain]

Just be thankful that the private sector runs the music industry. If the government were in charge, we would still be listening to 78RPM vinyl records with a target date of Dec. 11, 2014 to convert to these new-fangled "Long Play Records" or "LPs".

A protest would be raised by those who only own the single speed turntables.

Look, for those of you in financial troubles, I feel for you, but 40 dollars? Come on. You can't tell me you can't scrape together 40 bucks for a box.

And if you can't, I'm with Uma. Progress can't wait because a handful of people can't keep up with new technology..

[Broomstick]

I could live entirely off of the money I already have put away for two years with my current lifestyle. I could probably stretch it if I got real frugal.
Bravo for you. You are, however, a definite exception to the rule.

And I'm perfectly happy with it going on as planned. It's been in the works so long that the A in ATSC might as well stand for Ancient.
And, as I said, if it goes through as planned and I'm not ready I'll just live with the situation. Is that a problem for you? Of course I'd prefer to keep receiving TV without spending as much on a box as I do on groceries for a week, but I realize that the world doesn't have to accommodate me. It would be NICE if it would accommodate me, but it doesn't have to.

I'm not about to apologize for questioning the wisdom of someone who thinks a driver's license should be as expensive and time consuming to obtain as a pilot's license, and then in the next breath whines that TV is too expensive.
Actually, I did not say a driver's license should be AS expensive and time consuming as a pilot's license, I say it should be more like the process for a pilot's license. Not exactly like, but certainly more rigorous training and regular testing would be preferable to the current, laughable "requirements".

Is TV too expensive? Right now, for me, if I had to replace my TV yes, it would be too expensive. Right now, for me, buying a converter box without assistance is too expensive. More expensive meaning "exceeds my budget" and "there are higher priority items to spend money on", not "it costs too much in an objective sense". In the larger context of the average income of the average American the coverter boxes aren't too expensive. Unfortunately, I no longer have that average American income.

After reading the other thread, I'm rather sick of your constant whine that the reason you have been unemployed so long has nothing whatever to do with your own incompetence at finding a job.
Strictly speaking, I have NOT been entirely unemployed. I have found temporary work off and on, which has been a good thing and enabled me such outrageous luxuries as one new pair of shoes this year and two new loaf pans for baking bread. Oh, how extravagant!

In fact, I worked today and yesterday at gainful, money making employment. If I could work that many hours at that rate of pay I would be able to make all my bills and put a little away each week and be able to just go drive down to the mall and purchase and goddamned converter box even if it cost $100. The problem is not finding work, it's finding STEADY, PERMANENT work.

I realize some self-righteous assholes have trouble believing that the economy sucks right now and there really are people sincerely looking for work who can not get hired on a permanent basis. Constant whine? It's a fucking shitty reality I deal with every single day but god forbid I express my frustration at the situation. Worse yet, how dare a poor person "surf in" to the Straight Dope and muddy up the pristine forum with her poverty cooties!

And yet you were just posting recently in a pit thread about your unemployment that you couldn't afford to buy newspapers because you have to pay for gas to get to the unemployment office.
It wasn't MY idea to locate the unemployment office where it could not be reached by bus. Pretty fucking stupid if you ask me, it would seem logical to put the unemployment office in a location easily accessible to bus or commuter train but when has anything in the world been done logically?

So, which line of 'woe is me' are we supposed to be buying here?
If you don't like my posts why do you read them?

[Sarahfeena]

I actually would rather make it easier to get to work without a car, that is, fund mass transit. As it happens, I live in an area that does have mass transit. When I lived actually IN Chicago I never needed a car to get to work for over 20 years. As it is, when I have been able to find work (temporary) over the past year about half the time I have not needed a car to get to work then, either. So, in fact, I could (and have) lived quite well without a car.Well, sure, better mass transit would be great. But it's totally unworkable in most rural areas, and those people need to get to work too. And we are a long way from having decent mass transit in most suburban areas as well. Chicago is a huge city, and they have enough problems with mass transit...how do you expect people who DON'T live in urban areas to get to work? You said in your reply to catsix that you can't take the bus to the unemployment office. How would you get there if you couldn't afford the cost or renewing your driver's license?

Do I think the government is obliged to make TV watching easier/cheaper? Not in an absolute sense, no. However, in this instance promises were made in regards to subsidizing adapters that have not been kept. Truthfully, would have been better to not subsidize at all than to make and break promises. I would not be bitching half so much if my coupons had shown up. But now I'm told that if they don't show up, tough cookies. I don't even have the option of getting on a waiting list - I had my chance apparently and since the post office didn't get them to me, too bad. That's a little screw up, too. Imagine...the government screwing up a program like this. Color me shocked. The government can't run the mass transit you would like to see...what makes you think they are capable of ensuring people have luxuries like a working televison?

[Procrustus]

Would a few months ( or a year or two) delay have a negative impact in any way on all those companies excited about all the new bandwidth? Seems like more people than I imagined are not ready for the switch (even if it's their own "fault") In fact, there are more people on this thread than I would have thought there were in most states not ready. Some people want a delay, no one else seems to be in any rush. Let's compromise.

[Broomstick]

You said in your reply to catsix that you can't take the bus to the unemployment office. How would you get there if you couldn't afford the cost or renewing your driver's license?
1) Loooooooong walk from nearest bus stop
2) Bicycle (a little impractical this time of year with all the snow)
3) Taxi
4) Friend with license.

Imagine...the government screwing up a program like this. Color me shocked. The government can't run the mass transit you would like to see...what makes you think they are capable of ensuring people have luxuries like a working televison?
Actually, when I lived in Chicago mass transit was reliable enough that I very seldom was late to work when I relied on it. Certainly, I was late no more often than people who drove their cars in to work. People like to bitch about mass transit, but being in a traffic clusterfuck on the Dan Ryan freeway is also something to bitch about (and people do). So I don't see where you can say "government can't run the mass transit" because, at least in some places, it does run mass transit.

But, like I said - better not to make the promise than to make it and break it.

[Rand Rover]

Why does every thread turn into "the Broomstick channel"? Geez almighty.

[don't ask]

I have written to Obama to offer my advice. I have a simple solution to the problem that will provide an equitable solution for all Americans. Since those people whose reception is not compromised are so keen to point out "it's not food or water it's only TV" to those without set top boxes, simply stop all TV broadcasts until everyone has one.

[Captain Amazing]

Then I guess we get back to my original question from Page 1, which is quite simply where is the new deadline set, and how is that new deadline defended from criticism. Since no one will agree on this and folks think I'm just trying to kick poor people while they're down, rather than argue the academic technology policy issue, I guess there's not much point in discussing it on the SDMB.

I don't think you're just trying to kick poor people when they're down (and, btw, if you ever do, you want to go for the belly), but I just don't know that I have a good answer to your question. I do know, though, that according to Nielsen, as of last month, about 7 million households (6.8%) were unready for the switchover.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6624259.html?rssid=193

What I would have liked to see happen was a phased rollover. Rather than one date for the whole country, you say "State X will switchover on date Y" and so on. That both minimizes the strain of resources at any one time, and by studying how the early switches go, lets the Commission know what issues need to be focused on going forward. They're doing that to some extent with Wilmington, NC, and Hawaii, but I would have liked to see them do it with the whole country.

[jtgain]

To those of you asking for a delay, keep in mind that it has already been delayed. The original target date was 2006. The law which set this firm date was passed three years ago.

Delay it five more years. There will still be people with analog tuner sets who will be unemployed and not able to afford a converter box.

For the past year and a half, my local news has had adverts about Feb. 17, 2009 being the cut off date and posting links as to where to go to get your $40 coupon. I saw some boxes selling for exactly $40. Free. What more should society do to accomodate a switch?

Honestly. Does the federal government have to send someone to your home and escort you to the store?

What about installation? What about a 90 year old woman who can't connect the box? Nobody thought of that. We need another huge federal program to install converter boxes in people's homes.

What if your TV does not have remote control and you are disabled? Never fear, government channel changers will be dispatched to your home to change the channel for you..

What if you are incontinent, do not have TIVO, and don't want to miss an important part of a program to change your adult diaper? Don't worry, the feds will...............

[Broomstick]

What about installation? What about a 90 year old woman who can't connect the box? Nobody thought of that. We need another huge federal program to install converter boxes in people's homes.
Not around here - locally several groups are advertising their willingness to help people such as the elderly and disabled install new boxes and, if necessary, antennas.

[Sarahfeena]

1) Loooooooong walk from nearest bus stop
2) Bicycle (a little impractical this time of year with all the snow)
3) Taxi
4) Friend with license.


Actually, when I lived in Chicago mass transit was reliable enough that I very seldom was late to work when I relied on it. Certainly, I was late no more often than people who drove their cars in to work. People like to bitch about mass transit, but being in a traffic clusterfuck on the Dan Ryan freeway is also something to bitch about (and people do). So I don't see where you can say "government can't run the mass transit" because, at least in some places, it does run mass transit.

But, like I said - better not to make the promise than to make it and break it. I certainly agree with that last statement. Regarding mass transit in Chicago: they are going bankrupt, and they are cutting way back on service.

But that's beside the point. I didn't want to get too personal, but you have complaining all over the place about how hard it is for the poor, that no one understands, that there are no jobs, etc. etc. You haven't yet addressed the fact that yes, there are many, many people who NEED their cars to get to work (the fabulous mass transit in Chicago aside, as it doesn't help people who don't live in the Chicago area), and you would think that with your first-hand knowledge of how tough it can be, you want to make it harder & more expensive for people to get driver's licenses. And, inexplicably, you want to ensure that at least the folks who can't drive anywhere to get a job are at least entertained at home with their TVs. I understand that in your particular situation, you could make it work if you didn't have a car. But do you think it would be reasonable for the government to put that hardship on you?

[Una Persson]

I do know, though, that according to Nielsen, as of last month, about 7 million households (6.8%) were unready for the switchover.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6624259.html?rssid=193

What I would have liked to see happen was a phased rollover.
FTR, I linked to the Nielsen data earlier in the thread.

A phased rollover could work in less dense areas of the country I think, but according to the microdata on the Nielsen site, it looks to me like those are the areas where the readiness is the least. So maybe it would work, maybe not, I'm not sure.

[Sateryn76]

This reminds me so much of the situation in many schools, where the smart kids are penalized by having to go slower, so the slow kids can keep up. It's a manipulation of human compassion that often results in everybody being left behind.

So, 6.8% can't do it right now, for reasons ranging from being poor to being lazy. That means that 93.2% are ready for the transfer. Is it fair to keep so many behind?

Many people, including Broomstick, talk about how this or that "isn't fair". On this one, can I use the "it's not fair" excuse? Or does that only apply to the downtrodden?

[Broomstick]

Many people, including Broomstick, talk about how this or that "isn't fair". On this one, can I use the "it's not fair" excuse? Or does that only apply to the downtrodden?
It's not so much that it isn't "fair" as the fact that it is much more burdensome for some than for others. Is that fair or not? I suppose it depends on how you look at it. I do think that many people don't understand that this change really is a pain in the ass for some of us. That doesn't mean it shouldn't happen, and yes, some times you just have to put up with stuff for the greater benefit of all (something a few posters don't understand with a "fuck you, I got mine" attitude particularly promoted by some of the fans of Ayn Rand)

But, between reception issues, the coupon fiasco, and so on I'm not convinced that this is truly a benefit to the average American. Seriously, I've yet to see how opening up bandwidth is going to benefit the average person when, apparently, it's all been auctioned off to the highest bidder i.e. corporations who will then turn around and charge as much as they possibly can for its use.

[Carol Stream]

Finance a DTV box for me? No, you're under no obligation to do so. As I said, I'd be happy to delay the switch over because that would benefit me and mine. On the other hand, if somone offers to subsidize something like that for me I'd be an idiot not to take advantage of it, wouldn't I?

Who do you think IS financing those (coupons for) DTV boxes? That would be catsix and the rest of us taxpayers.

[Rick]

We'll buy one. It'll take about a week of Barb's net salary, but we'll do it. IF they're available for sale.
I was in an Adequate Purchase earlier this week, and they had them stacked in piles in this store. Hundreds of them. Maybe thousands. If you can't find one locally, let me know, I can send you one.

[Sateryn76]

It's not so much that it isn't "fair" as the fact that it is much more burdensome for some than for others. Is that fair or not? I suppose it depends on how you look at it. I do think that many people don't understand that this change really is a pain in the ass for some of us. That doesn't mean it shouldn't happen, and yes, some times you just have to put up with stuff for the greater benefit of all (something a few posters don't understand with a "fuck you, I got mine" attitude particularly promoted by some of the fans of Ayn Rand)

But, between reception issues, the coupon fiasco, and so on I'm not convinced that this is truly a benefit to the average American. Seriously, I've yet to see how opening up bandwidth is going to benefit the average person when, apparently, it's all been auctioned off to the highest bidder i.e. corporations who will then turn around and charge as much as they possibly can for its use.

Don't you understand how the economy works? Splitting the current television stream into many streams is going to increase the opportunities for media companies to sell new programming, advertising, news production and even wi-fi and other interactive uses. People have to be hired to fill those positions, right?

With programming, you need to purchase programs, which in turn hire actors, production staff and labor. Advertisers need the same kinds of production tools, and so do news operations. With something like wi-fi, a company can create millions of new jobs, from development to manufacturing to installation.

Sure, you can hate on corporations all you want, but the fact is that corporations are the ones who create jobs, be they small non-profits or giant, hulking eeeee-vil behemoths.

I hope they charge all that they can get for those new signals - I've heard a lot of people have lost jobs, and they're just getting by now.

[Broomstick]

Who do you think IS financing those (coupons for) DTV boxes? That would be catsix and the rest of us taxpayers.
I'm sorry - what made you think I'm NOT paying taxes? Federal taxes were withheld from my unemployment benefits (while I was still receiving them). I pay sales tax. I still have to fill out a 1040 by April 15.

And, I remind you - until 15 months ago I was earning quite a nice salary and paying 20% and more of my income in Federal, state, and local taxes. So... please, let's discard this notion that I am somehow not paying taxes. I'm not paying as much in actual dollars as many here, and not as much as I once was, but I most certainly AM a tax payer, even now.

Yes, I mentioned that some people make so little as to not pay taxes, but I do not happen to be in that group.

Second - if society/government/voters had decided NOT to subsidize this you wouldn't hear a peep out of me. What pisses me off is that promises were made and were not kept.

[Broomstick]

Don't you understand how the economy works? Splitting the current television stream into many streams is going to increase the opportunities for media companies to sell new programming, advertising, news production and even wi-fi and other interactive uses. People have to be hired to fill those positions, right?
Creates opportunities - it does not automatically create jobs. Just like handing over $750 billion to the finance sector of the economy created an opportunity to increase lending, lower interest rates, ease foreclosures, etc. etc. but did not actually result in ANY of that. Examples have already been given in this thread of companies that bought bandwidth and never used it. What's to stop companies from buying bandwidth as a future investment but not actually using it for years, waiting until the economy improves before starting new ventures? That does exactly jack shit for people needing jobs.

[Bridget Burke]

Don't you understand how the economy works? Splitting the current television stream into many streams is going to increase the opportunities for media companies to sell new programming, advertising, news production and even wi-fi and other interactive uses. People have to be hired to fill those positions, right?

With programming, you need to purchase programs, which in turn hire actors, production staff and labor. Advertisers need the same kinds of production tools, and so do news operations. With something like wi-fi, a company can create millions of new jobs, from development to manufacturing to installation.

Sure, you can hate on corporations all you want, but the fact is that corporations are the ones who create jobs, be they small non-profits or giant, hulking eeeee-vil behemoths.

I hope they charge all that they can get for those new signals - I've heard a lot of people have lost jobs, and they're just getting by now.

So provide some links to folks eager to invest in the new technology! Even a bunch of techies talking shit would be more convincing than a pdf from the office of Senator Joe Fucking Leiberman. (Extra points awarded if you're able to summarize the Golden Future That Awaits Us All.)

I'm a science fiction fan! PROVE that the Brave New World will be worth the trouble. (In my case, a very small inconvenience. But I know there are others who will find the change a bigger problem--even if you deny their right to live.)

[Justin_Bailey]

I'm sorry - what made you think I'm NOT paying taxes? Federal taxes were withheld from my unemployment benefits (while I was still receiving them). I pay sales tax. I still have to fill out a 1040 by April 15.

And, I remind you - until 15 months ago I was earning quite a nice salary and paying 20% and more of my income in Federal, state, and local taxes. So... please, let's discard this notion that I am somehow not paying taxes. I'm not paying as much in actual dollars as many here, and not as much as I once was, but I most certainly AM a tax payer, even now.

So you keep reminding us. So if you weren't always poor then you likely have a DVD player hooked up to your TV. You likely have several.

So head down to your local library and stock up on DVDs. Free, instant entertainment. DVDs won't be made obsolete by the DTV changeover. They don't give a shit what kind of TV you have. With a little juryrigging, I could hook a DVD player up to the wood paneled TV my grandma still has from the 70s.

You also obviously have an Internet connection, so you can get all of your local, national and international news from your PC. If that goes away, you could always find news through AM radio (I have no less than 8 devices that can act as a radio in my house, I'd assume that number is actually rather low).

You're bitching about a problem that you think you have that you don't even have. If I was an unfeeling bastard, I could paraphrase one Mr. Eric Cartman about poor people being stupid, but I won't because "There but for the grace of god go yadda yadda yadda..."

[Jimmy Joe Meager]

This reminds me so much of the situation in many schools, where the smart kids are penalized by having to go slower, so the slow kids can keep up. It's a manipulation of human compassion that often results in everybody being left behind.
Agreed.

"And the trees were all kept equal... by hatchet, axe, and saw."

[Broomstick]

So you keep reminding us. So if you weren't always poor then you likely have a DVD player hooked up to your TV. You likely have several.
Nope, have exactly one, which, I'm happy to say, plays both DVD's and VCR tapes.

If that goes away, you could always find news through AM radio (I have no less than 8 devices that can act as a radio in my house, I'd assume that number is actually rather low).
I have just one AM/FM radio in the house.

You're bitching about a problem that you think you have that you don't even have.
It's not just about me -- there are, of course, people far worse off than myself who do not, in fact, own either a VCR or DVD player, who do not own a radio, etc. What I have the biggest issue with is the rather cavalier attitude that $40 could not possibly be of consequence to anyone. There are a lot of people for whom $40 is a week and half of food, or the co-pay on a vital prescription, and who have little or no money to spare. Saying "oh, just read books!" is fine for me but not so for someone visually impaired. Someone always chimes in and points to something, declaring it a luxury or frivolous because it's OK to dictate to poor people in a way that it is not OK to dictate to anyone else. That's why I have said for a long time that poor people are second class citizens at best in the US and the past year has only confirmed that for me. Even before I was laid off I was aware of the desperately poor, now I am more so.

In one respect I do have an advantage over many poor people in that I have not always been poor and when I was middle class I bought high-quality items and regularly upgraded the technology around the household. We did not accumulate an excess of things such as radios or TV's because when we acquired new items of that sort we either donated the old to charity or outright gave them to poor people we knew personally. Thus, we have 1 TV, 1 DVD/VCR player, 1 AM/FM radio, etc. We did wind up with two computers, but we've had to cannibalize one to keep the other going. Personally, I don't understand why anyone would own more TV's than there are people in the household or a radio in every room but perhaps multiple appliances is important to them in a way it is not important for me. In any case, I do have some assets that are of high quality that, if I were truly starting over in life, I would simply not be able to have on my current meager earnings.

Of course, then I get - "How can you claim to be poor when you own X?" I bought it when I wasn't poor, of course. You are not required to hand in your quality stuff when your income drops (although at a certain point you may wish to sell it in order to convert it to money to spend on something else).

Personally, back when I was doing much better I didn't mind the government subsidy/converter coupons, although I did wish there was means testing for them. But then, I'm one of those squishy liberal types who don't mind helping out the less fortunate.

[Carol Stream]

I'm sorry - what made you think I'm NOT paying taxes? Federal taxes were withheld from my unemployment benefits (while I was still receiving them). I pay sales tax. I still have to fill out a 1040 by April 15.

And, I remind you - until 15 months ago I was earning quite a nice salary and paying 20% and more of my income in Federal, state, and local taxes. So... please, let's discard this notion that I am somehow not paying taxes. I'm not paying as much in actual dollars as many here, and not as much as I once was, but I most certainly AM a tax payer, even now.


State and local taxes are just that, and have nothing whatsoever to do with the TV coupons. Glad to hear you're making enough to pay (not merely have withheld) federal income taxes. The money for the boxes comes from taxpayers such as yourself, not some mythical government money fairy. Which is why your comment about another poster "not being obligated" to subsidize one for you is incorrect.

[Broomstick]

State and local taxes are just that, and have nothing whatsoever to do with the TV coupons. Glad to hear you're making enough to pay (not merely have withheld) federal income taxes.
I do not understand this "withheld" thing you speak of :p - most of the meager funds I have earned this year were as a freelancer/independent contractor. Aside from unemployment, no one withheld anything for me and thus I have had to hold some money in reserve in anticipation of April. Even if I wind up not obligated to pay anything else I will still have to hand over dollars for social security - and I will have to yield TWICE as much for that as people who have more typical paychecks do since, being self-employed, I must pay both the employee and the employer share.

Fact is, I am below the poverty line... and yet still pay taxes at ALL levels. If I had kids I might have additional tax credits and so forth but I don't. But do you hear me bitching about subsidizing other people's children? No - because I know that it is to the benefit of ALL of us that the next generation grow up educated, healthy, and so forth.

The money for the boxes comes from taxpayers such as yourself, not some mythical government money fairy. Which is why your comment about another poster "not being obligated" to subsidize one for you is incorrect.
I meant obligated in some sort of moral sense. Fact is, if people had been paying attention and were outraged when the coupon program was proposed they could have contacted their representatives and told them to vote against it. They didn't. So there you have it.

Again - I have already stated that I do not mind assisting the poor, and held that view even when I wasn't poor.

[Carol Stream]

I do not understand this "withheld" thing you speak of :p - most of the meager funds I have earned this year were as a freelancer/independent contractor. Aside from unemployment, no one withheld anything for me and thus I have had to hold some money in reserve in anticipation of April. Even if I wind up not obligated to pay anything else I will still have to hand over dollars for social security - and I will have to yield TWICE as much for that as people who have more typical paychecks do since, being self-employed, I must pay both the employee and the employer share.


Like state and local taxes, SS tax has nothing to do with it. From the circumstances you describe, you're likely in the group of ~35% of the population that pays *NO* federal income taxes. Having cleared that up, can you explain why the rest of should be subsidizing anybody's TV?

[Broomstick]

Bullshit. Social Security IS a Federal level tax. That "poor people don't pay Federal taxes" is a smoke screen for those who would further burden those of the lowest wealth. Poor people DO pay taxes, on all levels. They don't pay as much, but then they don't have as much. Really, at the end of the day taxes is paid is taxes paid and from the viewpoint of the one paying is all money he/she doesn't have anymore.

That aside, I really don't know what my tax liability will be this year. I haven't figured it out yet.

Finally - as I said, back when I was earning a very nice income - above the US average - I was content to subsidize the coupon program. Since I was will to do it, and given that I was paying plenty of taxes I did subsidize it. Why should YOU? Because I did. Because if I still had my old job I would still be paying for it. If I am willing to do it why should I excuse you?

[Rand Rover]

(something a few posters don't understand with a "fuck you, I got mine" attitude particularly promoted by some of the fans of Ayn Rand)


Neither I nor Ayn Rand promote that attitude. It's more like "fuck you for trying to take what's mine by force instead of working for it yourself."

[jtgain]

Bullshit. Social Security IS a Federal level tax.

Yes, one that was meant to apply to the social security program only, not to the general fund which does such constitutionally necessary functions, envisioned by the founders, like provide converter coupons.

[Carol Stream]

Bullshit. Social Security IS a Federal level tax. That "poor people don't pay Federal taxes" is a smoke screen for those who would further burden those of the lowest wealth.

Social Security taxes pay for Social Security, not tv converters.

Finally - as I said, back when I was earning a very nice income - above the US average - I was content to subsidize the coupon program. Since I was will to do it, and given that I was paying plenty of taxes I did subsidize it. Why should YOU? Because I did.

What kind of specious "reasoning" is that? I should subsidize it, because you did in the past? Huh?

[The Tao's Revenge]

Neither I nor Ayn Rand promote that attitude. It's more like "fuck you for trying to take what's mine by force instead of working for it yourself."

Well the government, on behalf of you, is taking some people's access to the public spectrum. Don't you feel you, as a voter, should compensate them for their loss?

[Frank]

Well the government, on behalf of you, is taking some people's access to the public spectrum. Don't you feel you, as a voter, should compensate them for their loss?
The govenment is compensating them for their loss, to the tune of $40 for converters which tend to run about, well, $40. Broomstick, et al., feel that due to the fact that somewhere around 4-6% of the U.S. TV watching population - due to the inablility to pull their head out of their ass for the last two years - will temporarily lose TV reception in February, that that is a valid reason to delay the digital changeover for, well, one can only assume forever.

[MsWhatsit]

The govenment is compensating them for their loss, to the tune of $40 for converters which tend to run about, well, $40. Broomstick, et al., feel that due to the fact that somewhere around 4-6% of the U.S. TV watching population - due to the inablility to pull their head out of their ass for the last two years - will temporarily lose TV reception in February, that that is a valid reason to delay the digital changeover for, well, one can only assume forever.


I am not really on the warpath about this but would just like to point out that the digital signal is apparently a lot more sensitive to buildings, etc., than analog signals. We live in an urban area and get 5 local channels sharp as a tack via analog transmission (plus a few more staticky channels). With the digital converter box, we got 2 sharp channels, 2 extremely choppy channels, and 1 channel that is totally dark. The $40 for the converter box does not adequately compensate us for either 1) losing 20-60% of our available channels, depending how you want to count it, or 2) having to shell out a monthly fee for cable to get the exact same service that we previously got for free over the air.

Also, I have asked in two separate fora now and have not heard a really convincing answer as to why this is necessary. Answers seem to be, "the government can make more money this way," and "it's the future. it just is. it's the FUTURE. shut up and stop impeding progress, BECAUSE IT'S THE FUTURE."

[Frank]

I am not really on the warpath about this but would just like to point out that the digital signal is apparently a lot more sensitive to buildings, etc., than analog signals. We live in an urban area and get 5 local channels sharp as a tack via analog transmission (plus a few more staticky channels). With the digital converter box, we got 2 sharp channels, 2 extremely choppy channels, and 1 channel that is totally dark.
As mentioned above, by me and others, you likely need a new antenna.
The $40 for the converter box does not adequately compensate us for either 1) losing 20-60% of our available channels, depending how you want to count it, or 2) having to shell out a monthly fee for cable to get the exact same service that we previously got for free over the air.
So don't get cable, get a new antenna. At least your converter box is free.
Also, I have asked in two separate fora now and have not heard a really convincing answer as to why this is necessary. Answers seem to be, "the government can make more money this way," and "it's the future. it just is. it's the FUTURE. shut up and stop impeding progress, BECAUSE IT'S THE FUTURE."
I can't imagine what answer would convince you, or others. Both of those answers are, in my opinion, adequate.

I've asked, and have not seen a response, when - exactly - do those who feel that the digital changeover is mis-timed believe that it should happen, and how do they feel that complaints will differ then than now?

[elmwood]

I've asked, and have not seen a response, when - exactly - do those who feel that the digital changeover is mis-timed believe that it should happen, and how do they feel that complaints will differ then than now?

I also still have not gotten any response to my offer of a free converter to a Doper in need.

[The Tao's Revenge]

The govenment is compensating them for their loss, to the tune of $40 for converters which tend to run about, well, $40. Broomstick, et al., feel that due to the fact that somewhere around 4-6% of the U.S. TV watching population - due to the inablility to pull their head out of their ass for the last two years - will temporarily lose TV reception in February, that that is a valid reason to delay the digital changeover for, well, one can only assume forever.

It was in response to rand's apparent assertion that the vouchers where theft.

As mentioned above, by me and others, you likely need a new antenna.

cite?

Even antenna aside there's problems. Analog is more fault tolerant. You either get a blank screen, distorted unwatchable pixalation, or a perfect picture with digital. Analog you just get more and more snow. In my experience the human brain is alot better about cleaning up snow and watching a show through it then digital is about handling noise.



I can't imagine what answer would convince you, or others. Both of those answers are, in my opinion, adequate.


Abandoning utility of the past just for change's sake is stupid.


I've asked, and have not seen a response, when - exactly - do those who feel that the digital changeover is mis-timed believe that it should happen, and how do they feel that complaints will differ then than now?

When the technology has the same watchable signal coverage as analog.

[Captain Amazing]

Broomstick, et al., feel that due to the fact that somewhere around 4-6% of the U.S. TV watching population - due to the inablility to pull their head out of their ass for the last two years - will temporarily lose TV reception in February, that that is a valid reason to delay the digital changeover for, well, one can only assume forever.

I think we're talking closer to 6 months to a year than "forever". Even if we do nothing else, that'll create enough time to fix the coupon backlog, and that wno't cost the federal government any more than already authorized.

[jtgain]

I think we're talking closer to 6 months to a year than "forever". Even if we do nothing else, that'll create enough time to fix the coupon backlog, and that wno't cost the federal government any more than already authorized.

I disagree. This coupon program has been active for more than a year, and people have sat on their hands. If you delay the change to Feb 17, 2010, then people will relax, praise Obama, wait until January of next year, create another coupon backlog and demand another extension.

Push it back to Feb 17, 2025. On Feb 18, 2025 there will be a news story about a poor little old lady sitting in her living room without TV because "no one ever told" her that she needed a converter box. Plus she is disabled, can't go to the store...

[Una Persson]

I also still have not gotten any response to my offer of a free converter to a Doper in need.
That is actually the most disturbing thing I've seen in this entire thread. That you can offer to give a converter box away, absolutely free, and folks would still rather not have it.

Think for a moment about what that says about the motivation of the general populace to take action and actually spend money (using a coupon) if the deadline was delayed 6 more months. Or a year. Or 100 years.

[Captain Amazing]

I disagree. This coupon program has been active for more than a year, and people have sat on their hands. If you delay the change to Feb 17, 2010, then people will relax, praise Obama, wait until January of next year, create another coupon backlog and demand another extension.

The coupon backlog is coming about because people who don't need the coupons are getting them, and because the agency that prints the coupons needs to assume a 100% coupon redemption rate. The problem is people like elmood who used a coupon to get an extra converter "just in case", and with people who think they're going to need a converter when they don't.

[MsWhatsit]

The coupon backlog is coming about because people who don't need the coupons are getting them, and because the agency that prints the coupons needs to assume a 100% coupon redemption rate. The problem is people like elmood who used a coupon to get an extra converter "just in case", and with people who think they're going to need a converter when they don't.


Bolding mine - is this really true, though? I assumed that one of the reasons the coupons expired so quickly was so that the issuing agency could release the unused funds and use them to issue additional coupons.

I do not agree, by the way, that "change for change's sake" is a good enough reason to enact this program. If there were some pressing need for the bandwidth, I would feel differently, but apparently there is no such pressing need. (I will admit some surprise on this topic, because when the switchover was first announced, I assumed that it was because the airwaves were needed immediately for some other use. Not just, "Well, digital is newer so we're going to switch to it because it's new.")

[mks57]

UHF TV was an insane waste of bandwidth. I never understood why the FCC made the band so large. To make things worse, the channel allocation rules wasted most of the band. Probably a concession to the dismal quality of UHF TV tuners for many years. The FCC has spent decades trying to put UHF on a par with VHF, with limited success.

There's a general principle that RF spectrum users should take advantage of new technologies in order to use that resource in an efficient manner. This is illustrated by the technical and regulatory history of mobile telephones and other two-way radio systems, which have evolved a tremendous amount, while radio and television broadcasting have seen limited changes. Think of a modern cell phone as a Toyota Prius and an analog TV set as a gas guzzling, air polluting, land yacht from the 1950s. With spectrum being a limited resource, all users have an obligation to not waste it. That's why spark-gap radios were killed off so long ago. Analog TV is today's spark-gap radio. There's still a great deal of wasted and poorly utilized spectrum.

[MsWhatsit]

Analog TV is today's spark-gap radio. There's still a great deal of wasted and poorly utilized spectrum.


Hm, OK. I can see this. Thanks for explaining.

[Broomstick]

That is actually the most disturbing thing I've seen in this entire thread. That you can offer to give a converter box away, absolutely free, and folks would still rather not have it.
As it happens, my coupon FINALLY came just yesterday so I am no longer in need of a converter box - we just came back from obtaining one. Thank you, Carol Stream, Rand Rover, and all the other Randroids for subsidizing my TV watching against your will :p

And a more serious public thank you to everyone who offered to help me out. Why don't one or several of you start a thread to assist potentially needy Dopers with converter box acquisition? I know I"m not the only poor person on this forum (just one of the noisier ones)

[Carol Stream]

As it happens, my coupon FINALLY came just yesterday so I am no longer in need of a converter box - we just came back from obtaining one. Thank you, Carol Stream, Rand Rover, and all the other Randroids for subsidizing my TV watching against your will

Congratulations. However, you've failed to provide a reason, let alone a compelling one, as to why we should be subsidizing your tv.

[Broomstick]

You know, a long time ago in this thread I said that if I had been in charge of the program I probably wouldn't have had a coupon program at all. I haven't given you a compelling reason because there isn't one.

I also said that, whether or not I would have set up such a system I would be a fool not to take advantage of one that existed.

In other words, our "representatives" saw fit to make this program and I took advantage of it. neener, neener. Did you SERIOUSLY think I'd forgo the free coupons/converter box due to mighty ethical principals? Ha!

If you don't like it call up your Clowngress critter and bitch to him/her.

(Yes, the fact it pisses off a selfish, self-righteous bitch such as yourself is just a bonus as far as I'm concerned)

[Gwyen]

No we are not. The fucking television is in hotels rooms. Heavy petting television (cable) is like wise not affected. We are talking about mild T and A television.

Sorry, but it really is a rich vs. poor thing. If you aren't poor, the cost of a converter box probably isn't a big deal, but if you are poor, it is. You can argue about whether they could afford it if they cut this, that and the other out of their lives, but the point is that if you're poor paying that much hurts.

If you're struggling to put food on the table for your family or pay the heating bill, a converter box is a significant expense. I'm sure there are people who'd say "Well, if you're that poor then you don't have the luxury to worry about watching T.V." But life is hard enough when you're poor. How quick would you be to give up one of the few forms of entertainment you can reasonably afford?

Doesnt Obama have a few more important things to worry about?

Honestly, if he's spent more than a few minutes lately thinking about this issue, I am not impressed.

I think the "just can't do it" problem will be as big as the "can't afford it".

That digital signal will not reach as far as the analog one does now.

It will be interesting to find out which rural areas are cut off.




Ok, as far as the TV conversion thing goes, I don't care in the least. I don't watch television often enough for it to matter. I do think that Obama should have much more important things on his agenda. However I kind of understand why he is pushing it. As the above quotes point out negative to the switch; the possibility of weak signals in rural areas, less affluent folks opting out of the purchase, and so on, I can see why Obama is pushing for the switch to take more time.

He doesn't want to be cut off from these people. He wants them to see all his public addresses.

If the switch causes the loss of TV in many rural and or poor homes, for whatever reason, then those people will not hear him, or see him in action.

Plausible? Yes Probable? Maybe not, but that's my two cents!

[Carol Stream]

You know, a long time ago in this thread I said that if I had been in charge of the program I probably wouldn't have had a coupon program at all. I haven't given you a compelling reason because there isn't one.

I also said that, whether or not I would have set up such a system I would be a fool not to take advantage of one that existed.

In other words, our "representatives" saw fit to make this program and I took advantage of it. neener, neener. Did you SERIOUSLY think I'd forgo the free coupons/converter box due to mighty ethical principals? Ha!

If you don't like it call up your Clowngress critter and bitch to him/her.

(Yes, the fact it pisses off a selfish, self-righteous bitch such as yourself is just a bonus as far as I'm concerned)

You're the selfish bitch in this thread. Hey, if you can take advantage of your fellow citizens to get something for nothing, why the hell not, right? Typical loser thought pattern, there.

[elmwood]

That is actually the most disturbing thing I've seen in this entire thread. That you can offer to give a converter box away, absolutely free, and folks would still rather not have it.

And, at the time I posted this message, there's still nobody asking for it. Then again, I can imagine the excuses: "Even if we had a converter, we live out in middle-of-nowhere, Kansas/the Lower East Side of Manhattan, and we'd still lose most of our channels because we're too far from the transmitter/interpath."

I just think some people don't like the idea of digital television, period. They want to use their RCA ColorTrak consoles with the decorative bicentennial eagle emblems and non-functional drawer pulls forever.

[IAmNotSpartacus]

You're the selfish bitch in this thread. Hey, if you can take advantage of your fellow citizens to get something for nothing, why the hell not, right? Typical loser thought pattern, there.

Do you file tax returns?

Do you claim credits and deductions?

[Influential Panda]

What irony? This is not the first time I've been critical of Obama.
What? Your post essentially consisted of "trust in the great leader, for he is wise and knows things we do not" with the caveat that you might possibly be wrong. Great concession, that one.

[Liberal]

What? Your post essentially consisted of "trust in the great leader, for he is wise and knows things we do not" with the caveat that you might possibly be wrong. Great concession, that one.Make fun all you want, but leadership is exactly what we need right now.

The problem with almost everything we're going through boils down to a lack of confidence. It's a lack of confidence in the system, in the people running the system, in the dollar, in our banks, and in our industries. Banks aren't lending because they aren't confident that they'll be repaid. People aren't spending because they aren't confident that they'll have their jobs much longer. Housing sales have plummeted because people aren't confident that home values will appreciate.

Because our currency is not standardized by any commodity, ours is a fiat economy. It depends on good faith and credit. When these dry up, the economy stalls, even crashes. Right wing nuts poked fun at Obama's desire to "spread the wealth around" without understanding the Chicagoan/Austrian nature of his premise — namely, that wealth cannot be created unless money is moving from one person to another. When money is hoarded or held by a cabal, no new wealth can possibly be generated.

All that is required to revive our economy is to get banks to lend, investors to capitalize, companies to hire, and consumers to spend. These are exactly the keys that Obama is targeting with his plans. Pardon me if I fail to excoriate him for his intelligence and insight.

For what it's worth, I registered the same sort of complaints when people bashed Bush over piddly shit, like how he pronounces "nuclear" or how many fewer minutes he should have spent in the classroom on 9/11 or even, God, someone pitted him for his facial expressions or something. Meanwhile, he was committing war crimes, trampling on our liberties, trashing our international reputation, and neglecting the coercion and deception taking place in the open market. Fuck how he pronounces "nuclear".

With Obama, same same but different. He is doing almost everything right, in terms of putting people in place and setting things up so that he has the best possible chance of dealing with the shitstorm Bush created. Fuck all the bitching about whom he invites to say a prayer, or what he thinks about DTV. Speaking for myself, he will deserve criticism when fails to do the very best he can or when he phones it all in the way Bush did.

He's intellectually briliant. He's morally courageous. He's a good hearted man who cares about people. He is self-made, having endured hardships and obstacles that only a biracial child of a single mother can know. He values the opinions of others even (and especially) when they disagree with him. He consults people who oppose him along with people who support him. He surrounds himself with giants and legends, and isn't intimidated by any of them. He is a natural leader whom people are happy to serve.

Every person who opts to join these circus causes and snipe at him, rather than give him support for his excellent ideas, is a traitor to people who are struggling and need a way out of joblessness, homelessness, and hopelessness. So don't expect much from me in the way of "Wah! Obama made a different decision than I would have made!"

Yes, goddammit, we should trust him. He has earned it.

[Rand Rover]

What? Your post essentially consisted of "trust in the great leader, for he is wise and knows things we do not" with the caveat that you might possibly be wrong. Great concession, that one.

Seriously. I meant to point this out myself but forgot. Liberal's position re: Obama is very very strange. Liberal has basically been frothing all over himself about the guy for the longest time, and then in this and another recent GD thread he mentions how often he is critical of Obama, which I've never seen any evidence of. Some of his other posts about Obama during the election really had me scratching my head about his (Liberal's) mental acuity (at least re: Obama).

[Liberal]

Seriously. I meant to point this out myself but forgot. Liberal's position re: Obama is very very strange. Liberal has basically been frothing all over himself about the guy for the longest time, and then in this and another recent GD thread he mentions how often he is critical of Obama, which I've never seen any evidence of. Some of his other posts about Obama during the election really had me scratching my head about his (Liberal's) mental acuity (at least re: Obama).Maybe your bias has blinded you. Among the flaws I have enumerated, aside from those in this thread, are these:


His naivete with regard to the nefarious intentions of others
His vulnerabilities to exploitation due to the moral depravity of people in Washington
His reliance on the goodwill of wily Congressional leaders
His natural kindness and the fragility it exposes
The possibility that he might fail altogether due to the pettiness and gluttonous greed of others
I could go on, but I think that alone is a considerable list.

[Influential Panda]

Every person who opts to join these circus causes and snipe at him, rather than give him support for his excellent ideas, is a traitor to people who are struggling and need a way out of joblessness, homelessness, and hopelessness. So don't expect much from me in the way of "Wah! Obama made a different decision than I would have made!"

Yes, goddammit, we should trust him. He has earned it.
I pretty much trust Obama to do things well. I feel like I've been holding my breath for eight years and with Obama I can exhale and get on with my life. I no no longer obsessively check newspapers for ever-compounding reports of corruption and malfeasance. I agree almost entirely with what you've written, and I'm willing to take the condescending jokes when I say Obama will likely be the greatest president of my lifetime.

All of this, however, has fuck all to do with my point. "I might be wrong" is not a criticism of Obama; it is a basic requirement of reason.

His naivete with regard to the nefarious intentions of others
His vulnerabilities to exploitation due to the moral depravity of people in Washington
His reliance on the goodwill of wily Congressional leaders
His natural kindness and the fragility it exposes
The possibility that he might fail altogether due to the pettiness and gluttonous greed of others

His dick is just entirely too large

[Rand Rover]

Maybe your bias has blinded you. Among the flaws I have enumerated, aside from those in this thread, are these:


His naivete with regard to the nefarious intentions of others
His vulnerabilities to exploitation due to the moral depravity of people in Washington
His reliance on the goodwill of wily Congressional leaders
His natural kindness and the fragility it exposes
The possibility that he might fail altogether due to the pettiness and gluttonous greed of others
I could go on, but I think that alone is a considerable list.

. . . further proving my point.

[Bosstone]

His greatest weakness is that he just cares too much.

[Carol Stream]

Do you file tax returns?

Of course.

Unlike the down-trodden Broomstick, I am not confused about what state/local, SS, and federal taxes actually pay for.

[alterego]

As someone who doesn't watch TV, and doubts Obama will be watching TV, I think Obama and myself should both STFU about DTV.

[elmwood]

The problem is people like elmood who used a coupon to get an extra converter "just in case", and with people who think they're going to need a converter when they don't.

"Just in case" my financial situation became so dire I'd have to give up Dish Network. I was unemployed at the time I got the coupons.

[IAmNotSpartacus]

Of course.
Which of course means you are then taking handouts from your fellow citizens in order to reduce your tax liability.

[Carol Stream]

Which of course means you are then taking handouts from your fellow citizens in order to reduce your tax liability.

How is filing a tax return "taking handouts from my fellow citizens?"

[jtgain]

Which of course means you are then taking handouts from your fellow citizens in order to reduce your tax liability.

I don't understand this at all. A person's tax liability is what it is. If he/she takes legal deductions then the taxpayer isn't taking a thing from fellow citizens.

[Una Persson]

Which of course means you are then taking handouts from your fellow citizens in order to reduce your tax liability.
Huh? :confused:

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

So head down to your local library and stock up on DVDs. Free, instant entertainment. DVDs won't be made obsolete by the DTV changeover.You may fail to realize that TV--especially broadcast TV--is not solely about entertainment. It is also used for educational, news, community affairs, and emergency information purposes. In fact, those are the primary purposes for television.

Again--I'm talking about broadcast TV-- certainly not cable or satellite TV, which aside from the "must-carry" rules that require them to offer local broadcast stations in their channel line-up, have no obligation whatsoever to do anything other than program H0tt chIXXX Makingg 0uT!!! 24 hours a day. Broadcast TV, OTOH, is mandated to serve the community needs. It has no raison d'etre beyond that, although licensees can and do program insipid entertainment too).

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

The money for the boxes comes from taxpayers such as yourself, not some mythical government money fairy. Which is why your comment about another poster "not being obligated" to subsidize one for you is incorrect.Just a reminder that EVERY citizen of the United States--not just those who pay taxes--are the sole owners of the broadcast airwaves and as such, are entitled to be able to receive our airwaves without undue burden (for example, being forced to shell out $300 to buy a new digital TV set because of the transition to DTV).

We all decide (through the FCC and other agencies) how we want our airwaves to be utilized. And when we decided (through Congress) to switchover to DTV, we also decided (through Congress) that such a massive, yet beneficial, change in how we receive critical information (news, weather, toxic spill evacuations etc.) should not present an impossibly high financial burden on ourselves, the owners of the United States broadcast frequencies.

[Carol Stream]

Just a reminder that EVERY citizen of the United States--not just those who pay taxes--are the sole owners of the broadcast airwaves and as such, are entitled to be able to receive our airwaves without undue burden (for example, being forced to shell out $300 to buy a new digital TV set because of the transition to DTV).

.

Say what? You can receive the airwaves on your own dime. There is no obligation for the rest of us to pay for it.

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

Well the government, on behalf of you, is taking some people's access to the public spectrum. Don't you feel you, as a voter, should compensate them for their loss?I feel that way. I only makes sense--financially, even. You see, this whole dealie is really a trade-off--by changing over to DTV we give ourselves more programming with better quality but also lose the ability to use the equipment already in our homes to receive broadcast TV.

Since the switchover greatly increases the value of a broadcast license (which the Citizens, as owners of the airwaves have the right to set the terms of or even revoke) we decided that we'll go ahead and give the media corporations their fonest wish BUT only so long as no public airwaves owner would be unduly burderned financially by the agreement.

The coupons are the watered-down way to attempt to achieve that. It's kind of a raw deal though because, IMO, the license holders should have been required to pay for the upgrade--both for the new transmission equipment AND the necessary new receiving equipment (i.e. new digital sets or converter boxes) because they are the ones benefiting most. And it still would have been a sweet deal for them even then because the value of their broadcast holdings is going WAY up. We kind of let them off easy as people are still having to shell out money for the converters and possibly new antennae.

The idea that people are complaining about this is ludicrous. If you're mad that the Treasury didn't come out ahead on this (and I don't know that they didn't) then complain to Congress and the FCC that they didn't require the license holders to pay more compensation for their new, glorious windfall. They rent the airwaves from us on OUR terms and at OUR pleasure.

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

Say what? You can receive the airwaves on your own dime. There is no obligation for the rest of us to pay for it.You (and everyone else) are obliged to pay for the upkeep of the Federal Interstate system so that I (and everyone else) may have access to a viable, well-maintained, transportation system. Whether I choose to make use of that Interstate in a Rolls-Royce, a duct-taped together '72 Pinto, or a public bus is left up to me.

But if we all decide tomorrow to make a paradigm shift in the way the Interstate works (say for some reason only hydrogen-powered cars can function on the freeways after Feb. 17, 2009) then the citizens of the USA, acting through Congress, may feel that some assistance in procuring the new hydro-cars is beneficial economically and otherwise. We would simply decide that it is not good for our country to leave millions of people with no way to get to work or school. That's a bit like what's going on here.

I think you may be under the impression the broadcast airwaves in the U.S are only meant to be used by media conglomerates to shove glurge down our throats and profit massively from it. That IS what cablecasts (cable--not broadcast) of pay-per-view WWF wrestling matches are for and if anyone wants to watch that crap (or Fox News, or CNN) they are on their own and deserve no more help from the government than they would paying for a trip to a strip club. But I assure you, that is not the way the public airwaves work.

I am not sure that you understand how broadcasting, the granting (and revoking) of broadcast licenses, the necessity of a robust communication system with relatively equal-access, and U.S. broadcast law in general works. That's OK, most people don't. But maybe back off a little about things you don't understand.

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

I've asked, and have not seen a response, when - exactly - do those who feel that the digital changeover is mis-timed believe that it should happen, and how do they feel that complaints will differ then than now?The digital changeover was not mistimed at all. Feb. 17th is as good a time as any. The problem is that because of our complete economic clusterfuck Congress did not have the money (and/or was not able to appropriate enough buckage) to adequately fund the converter-box coupon program.

Since people--through no fault of their own--suddenly became unable to get the coupons they were promised to help fund their personal changeover, Obama, and others felt it might be a good idea to delay the changeover until the coupons become available again.

The fact that the clueless "head-in-the-ass" procrastinator crowd gets a reprieve; one more chance to wake up and get finally remove head from ass is just a fortunate (for them) coincidence.

[IAmNotSpartacus]

Huh? :confused:

What is so difficult to understand? Claiming deductions and credits on your taxes are free gifts from the rest of the taxpayers, courtesy of the Internal Revenue Code.

At least, they are as much a free gift as the DTV converter box coupons, as CarolStream has claimed.

[IAmNotSpartacus]

If he/she takes legal deductions then the taxpayer isn't taking a thing from fellow citizens.

But taking a coupon from a legal government-subsidized program is taking something from fellow citizens? :rolleyes:

[IAmNotSpartacus]

How is filing a tax return "taking handouts from my fellow citizens?"

Perhaps I jumped the gun. Perhaps you do not claim any deductions or exemptions. Perhaps you pay the full tax rate on every dollar your earn. In that case, "my bad."

[elfkin477]

You (and everyone else) are obliged to pay for the upkeep of the Federal Interstate system so that I (and everyone else) may have access to a viable, well-maintained, transportation system. Whether I choose to make use of that Interstate in a Rolls-Royce, a duct-taped together '72 Pinto, or a public bus is left up to me.

But if we all decide tomorrow to make a paradigm shift in the way the Interstate works (say for some reason only hydrogen-powered cars can function on the freeways after Feb. 17, 2009) then the citizens of the USA, acting through Congress, may feel that some assistance in procuring the new hydro-cars is beneficial economically and otherwise. We would simply decide that it is not good for our country to leave millions of people with no way to get to work or school. That's a bit like what's going on here. The comparison is only fair if, like in the current situation, the overwhelming majority of people already have hydrogen powered cars.

I was finally able to locate an article that said how many households - including those who did get the converter boxes already - are actually affected by the switch: no more than eight million. Moreover, over 500,000 of those households are in the LA area. If the problems exist in large urban areas primarily, couldn't they just delay the switch for those areas? Sure, the odd grandma here and there might need someone to buy her a box anyway if she lives outside a large concentration of fellow analog users, but is it really worth delaying for that few people? Again? Bear in mind that it's already been delayed numerous times - the switch date was orginially in October of 2006.

And could someone confirm if Obama's request is actually being honored like some of the last posts in this thread suggest? I found an article from yesterday where someone involved in the switch was urging the government to ignore Obama, so it doesn't seem like a done deal yet.

[Grumman]

Maybe your bias has blinded you. Among the flaws I have enumerated, aside from those in this thread, are these:


His naivete with regard to the nefarious intentions of others
His vulnerabilities to exploitation due to the moral depravity of people in Washington
His reliance on the goodwill of wily Congressional leaders
His natural kindness and the fragility it exposes
The possibility that he might fail altogether due to the pettiness and gluttonous greed of others
I could go on, but I think that alone is a considerable list.
Well, it's official: Barack Obama is a Mary Sue.

[tumbleddown]

I disagree. This coupon program has been active for more than a year, and people have sat on their hands.
If the changeover was scheduled to happen on X date and people applied for a coupon 4 months before said date, why is that wrong? The only deadline is the changeover date. In fact, that's not even a deadline, that's just the point when their current TVs would go dark. I heard a lot of "apply for your coupon today at blah blah website" which right there posed a difficulty to people who aren't online (I applied for the coupons for all of my elderly relatives who needed them, they're not people who know jack diddly crap about websites) but I never heard "apply for your coupon today because quantities are limited" or "apply for your coupon today before this program runs out of funding."
The digital changeover was not mistimed at all. Feb. 17th is as good a time as any.
Except for people who will need to install or adjust outside antennae and live in places where February comes along with snow and/or ice. I don't know about you, but I'm going to be pretty pissed if I hear about some poor shlub dying or breaking himself into pieces because he was trying to fix his TV reception for his crying kids who wanted to see their Elmo and slipped and fell off the slick asphalt shingles, you know?

[atomicbadgerrace]

I don't know about you, but I'm going to be pretty pissed if I hear about some poor shlub dying or breaking himself into pieces because he was trying to fix his TV reception for his crying kids who wanted to see their Elmo and slipped and fell off the slick asphalt shingles, you know?

No, I don't know. If I were to have an emotional reaction to a story like that, it wouldn't be filed under "pissed."

[Musicat]

Some numbers I have heard...50% of the country gets cable, so they aren't affected. Of the remaining that use an antenna, only 7% isn't digital ready.

So after years of warnings and a year of government handouts, with 93% of the affected group ready for the change, we have to wait some more?

Our state legislature decided that if 51% of all cable subscribers had digital units, it was enough to let the cable companies drop local community access in the 2..100 channel range, which they have done (no one is sure what the number is, and the cable companies aren't telling, but they claim it's more than 50%). So 51% is enough for one major change but 93% isn't enough for another? Hogwash.

[Una Persson]

What is so difficult to understand? Claiming deductions and credits on your taxes are free gifts from the rest of the taxpayers, courtesy of the Internal Revenue Code.

At least, they are as much a free gift as the DTV converter box coupons, as CarolStream has claimed.
Only on the Bizarro World of the SDMB can filing taxes and taking deductions be considered a "free gift", rather than "defining what the true tax you are supposed to be paying actually is."

[Influential Panda]

Only on the Bizarro World of the SDMB can filing taxes and taking deductions be considered a "free gift", rather than "defining what the true tax you are supposed to be paying actually is."
Not really. The fact that some people confuse deductions with free money is probably quite common, the same way people treat their refund like free money. "Let's see how much money I'm getting from the government this year!" when really people should be saying "let's see how much of my money the government stupidly asked for."

[Broomstick]

You're the selfish bitch in this thread. Hey, if you can take advantage of your fellow citizens to get something for nothing, why the hell not, right? Typical loser thought pattern, there.
Ha! Bitch, I already told you that I paid my taxes faithfully until I was laid off so I have already paid into the general funds that cover the cost of this program. In fact, since I have neither children nor mortgage I was almost certainly paying MORE in taxes than most of my peers. I was carrying all those "loser" suburbanites with McMansions and rugrats.

I expect that, despite low wages, I will STILL have to pay taxes this year because, again, I have neither children nor mortgage and thus miss out on those deductions.

So fuck off - I take advantage of NO ONE and I did not "get something for nothing" as I pay taxes just as you do. (And no, I am not confused about the difference between the various kinds of taxes we pay - you totally missed my point that even the poor pay taxes, no one truly gets a free ride in this country).

I think what frightens you is the notion that someone who is NOT stupid, lazy, or a "loser" could fall into poverty because you find it threatening to your pretty little world. After all, if it could happen to me it could happen to YOU.

[ralph124c]

I view TV as the government's way of controlling the masses-it serves two main functions:
-dissemination of proaganda
-keeping the urban poor at home, watching the visual equivalent of junk food
So, those converter boxes are necessay-we cannot live without Opra!

[Ludovic]

So 51% is enough for one major change but 93% isn't enough for another? Hogwash.

Perhaps the answer is indeed hogwash but in the other direction?

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

I view TV as the government's way of controlling the masses-it serves two main functions:
-dissemination of proaganda
-keeping the urban poor at home, watching the visual equivalent of junk food
So, those converter boxes are necessay-we cannot live without Opra!If the government is trying to control the masses through TV they aren't trying very hard. The masses don't really watch PBS. And what propaganda are they disseminating exactly, "TAKE YOUR ANTIQUES TO THE ROADSHOW... THE ROADSHOW...THE ROADSHOW..."???

Another reminder--TV can, should, and does offer educational opportunities and warnings of local emergencies. Yes, even poor people should be informed about a tanker that has overturned and is leaking a toxic cloud. Unless of course, you would prefer that they succumb.

[Carol Stream]

So fuck off - I take advantage of NO ONE and I did not "get something for nothing" as I pay taxes just as you do. (And no, I am not confused about the difference between the various kinds of taxes we pay - you totally missed my point that even the poor pay taxes, no one truly gets a free ride in this country).

How many taxes did you pay that have anything to do with the converter boxes? I am guessing the grand sum total of zero.

[jtgain]

What about the cost of a TV, period. I know that we are assuming that poor people have an older set with an analog tuner, but what if I am just starting out, and I don't have a TV set at all? Should the government buy me one?

And for TV, I need electricity. What if I can't afford my electric bill? Will the government pay that?

And for electricity to do any good, I need a home. I'm not talking about subsidized housing. I'm talking about cash on the barrel, buy me a house so I can watch my digital TV.

[Broomstick]

How many taxes did you pay that have anything to do with the converter boxes? I am guessing the grand sum total of zero.
Good god, you really are fucking dense, aren't you?

AS I ALREADY STATED: - through November of 2007 I was bringing home $50K+ a year and paying all applicable taxes on that. Do you comprehend that? You DO understand that I had a very nice corporate job with a very nice income, benefits, etc? You do understand that I have not always been poor, yes?

As I already stated, not having either mortgage or children I had fewer deductions in my taxes than most of my peers.

Therefore, assume I paid exactly as much towards the converter box program as you did in 2007. Why are you having a problem with this concept?

How much will I pay in 2007? I don't know yet - I have a W-2 from a part time job I held for several months, statements from two banks, a savings and loan, the stock investments we liquidated for cash, medical expenses we might be able to deduct, and several 1099's, not all of which I have received. Some taxes were withheld, some were not. It's going to take a little time to sort out. It's fucking January 12, do YOU have your 2007 taxes done yet? Have you even received all your paperwork yet?

[Broomstick]

What about the cost of a TV, period. I know that we are assuming that poor people have an older set with an analog tuner, but what if I am just starting out, and I don't have a TV set at all? Should the government buy me one?
No, but perhaps the government should direct you to your nearest thrift store or pawn shop where serviceable TV's can be purchased very cheaply. Especially the analog sets these days.

And for TV, I need electricity. What if I can't afford my electric bill? Will the government pay that?
Believe it or not, there are programs to help poor people pay their utility bills. It's pretty hard to qualify for them, but they do exist.

And for electricity to do any good, I need a home. I'm not talking about subsidized housing. I'm talking about cash on the barrel, buy me a house so I can watch my digital TV.
Ha, ha, very funny. ;) Wasn't that what ARM's were all about?

[Carol Stream]

It's fucking January 12, do YOU have your 2007 taxes done yet? Have you even received all your paperwork yet?

Yes, since it's 2009 now. :rolleyes:

[Carol Stream]

You (and everyone else) are obliged to pay for the upkeep of the Federal Interstate system so that I (and everyone else) may have access to a viable, well-maintained, transportation system.

Cite?

And yes, I understand that "We the People" own the airwaves. Check. Why do you think that the very same "We the People" are obligated to pay for (each) other's access?

In other words, cite?

[Carol Stream]

What is so difficult to understand? Claiming deductions and credits on your taxes are free gifts from the rest of the taxpayers, courtesy of the Internal Revenue Code.

Filing a tax return with the legal deductions and credits is paying what you actually owe. It's not a gift from anyone. Neither you nor the government have a right to my labor.

[Broomstick]

Neither you nor the government have a right to my labor.
What do you think taxes are? They government is demanding you hand over part of your income, which is earned by your labor.

[Carol Stream]

What do you think taxes are? They government is demanding you hand over part of your income, which is earned by your labor.

You missed post #201.

[Broomstick]

Anyone with half a brain would realize that what you refer to in #201 was an obvious typo on my part.

Now, one more time - what do you think taxes are, other than the government taking a slice of your labor?

[Carol Stream]

Anyone with half a brain would realize that what you refer to in #201 was an obvious typo on my part.

Now, one more time - what do you think taxes are, other than the government taking a slice of your labor?

A typo? If you say so. But you really don't seem to know what you're talking about when it comes to taxes.

In any case, I render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, according to the tax law, on time, and in full. You needn't be so obvioulsy grabby, though.

[Broomstick]

A typo? If you say so. But you really don't seem to know what you're talking about when it comes to taxes.
Only in your fevered brain's deluded imagination.

In any case, I render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, according to the tax law, on time, and in full.
But I thought you said no one had a right to your labor - you fucking hypocrite. You oppose the government taking your labor, but yet you meekly hand it over and it's OK because it's the government taking your money?

And you say I'm confused?

[Carol Stream]

Only in your fevered brain's deluded imagination.


But I thought you said no one had a right to your labor - you fucking hypocrite. You oppose the government taking your labor, but yet you meekly hand it over and it's OK because it's the government taking your money?

And you say I'm confused?

Oh, you're confused all right. You keep railing about how many taxes you pay, but none of the ones you mention have anything whatsoever to do with converter boxes.

What's next, are you going to claim that the state/local cigarette and beer taxes you pay get you a converter box?

[The Tao's Revenge]

A typo? If you say so. But you really don't seem to know what you're talking about when it comes to taxes.

That was a pretty obvious typo, and I don't find it very convincing of your case that you couldn't see it as such.

[IAmNotSpartacus]

Only on the Bizarro World of the SDMB can filing taxes and taking deductions be considered a "free gift", rather than "defining what the true tax you are supposed to be paying actually is."

I guess making the correlation between the government incentivizing particular behaviors in the form of tax deductions with encouraging people to "switch" to DTV by handing out coupons was too much for you make?

Here, let me be clear.

The coupons are no more a handout than tax deductions. Tax deductions not a handout? Neither are the coupons.

[IAmNotSpartacus]

Neither you nor the government have a right to my labor.

Me? Nope. Government? Quite debatable. Debtor's prison may not exist, but the BOP (http://www.bop.gov/) does.

[Broomstick]

Oh, you're confused all right. You keep railing about how many taxes you pay, but none of the ones you mention have anything whatsoever to do with converter boxes.
And which taxes, specifically, do you think pay for the converter box program? Are you under the delusion there is a specific "converter box tax"? And why do you think I'm not paying taxes? Really, I said that when fully employed I paid all required taxes, that should be answer enough, unless of course you're a vindictive cunt flailing around for ammunition in an argument you've already lost.

What's next, are you going to claim that the state/local cigarette and beer taxes you pay get you a converter box?
Since I do not smoke I have never paid cigarette taxes in my life. Beer (actually, all forms of alcohol) was another item I gave up immediately on losing my job since it's a money sink, so I haven't paid alcohol taxes for over a year, either. I will say, though, that those taxes do help fund the state-subsidized health insurance I now have - but unless you live in Indiana you aren't helping out with that one.

[Una Persson]

I guess making the correlation between the government incentivizing particular behaviors in the form of tax deductions with encouraging people to "switch" to DTV by handing out coupons was too much for you make?

Here, let me be clear.

The coupons are no more a handout than tax deductions. Tax deductions not a handout? Neither are the coupons.
"Too much for me?" Really now; uncalled for.

I refuse to get sucked into a spiraling "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin SDMB argument", but I insist it's invalid to equate all tax deductions, regardless of intent, magnitude, and scope. Some are clearly "handouts" and others are not. Business expense deductions, home mortgage deductions, child deductions, and DTV coupons are not equivalent.

If you honestly believe that all deductions are "handouts" then we will never have a meeting of the minds, and good day to you.

[Kyrie Eleison]

Business expense deductions, home mortgage deductions, child deductions, and DTV coupons are not equivalent.

If you honestly believe that all deductions are "handouts" then we will never have a meeting of the minds, and good day to you.
Perhaps a "handout" is a deduction that someone else takes, and you do not? The government encourages home ownership by allowing citizens to deduct their mortgage interest, reducing their tax burden, and, in essence, handing out money to them to subsidize home purchases. If the converter program had been implemented as a $40 tax credit for each taxpayer who submitted documentation on his tax return proving that he had bought a converter, would your opinion of it be any different?

The net financial effect is the same. Less money in the federal coffers, because those missing dollars were used to encourage a purchase. In one case, we're talking about purchasing houses, and the other, purchasing a device to enable television reception.

It's perfectly legitimate to talk to about what sort of purchases the government should be encouraging, or whether it should be engaged in such behavior at all, but I fail to see how the two are not equivalent.

[Steve MB]

You're the selfish bitch in this thread. Hey, if you can take advantage of your fellow citizens to get something for nothing, why the hell not, right?

What is this gibberish? The government takes away your ability to use your TV set, and pays compensation to make you whole with a converter box that makes the TV set work again. Where do you get "something for nothing" out of that? (The doctor with the rubber glove and the little flashlight will be along to answer this question in a moment....)

[IAmNotSpartacus]

If you honestly believe that all deductions are "handouts" then we will never have a meeting of the minds, and good day to you.
No, I believe that deductions are government-approved incentives designed to encourage particular behaviors out of the population. I also believe that DTV coupons are not a handout, but are instead a government-approved incentive to encourage the particular behavior of consumers buying DTV converters.

[Captain Amazing]

Debating over the validity of taxation and whether or not coupons should exist is sort of a moot point, isn't it? For better or for worse, the coupons do exist, the boxes are being subsidized, and that's not changing, whether the digital delay happens or not.

[Carol Stream]

And which taxes, specifically, do you think pay for the converter box program? Are you under the delusion there is a specific "converter box tax"? And why do you think I'm not paying taxes? Really, I said that when fully employed I paid all required taxes, that should be answer enough, unless of course you're a vindictive cunt flailing around for ammunition in an argument you've already lost.

Why don't you answer your own question, dearie. Which taxes that you do pay go towards the converter box program?

So far you've mentioned sales tax, and Social Security tax. Neither of which support said program.

[Bridget Burke]

.....And which taxes, specifically, do you think pay for the converter box program? Are you under the delusion there is a specific "converter box tax"? And why do you think I'm not paying taxes? Really, I said that when fully employed I paid all required taxes, that should be answer enough, unless of course you're a vindictive cunt flailing around for ammunition in an argument you've already lost....

You've described Carol Stream perfectly!

[Broomstick]

So far you've mentioned sales tax, and Social Security tax. Neither of which support said program.
No, you stupid cunt, I've mentioned state, local, Federal, sales, social security and ALL TAXES. Stick a sock in it, you jacked up little tart, we've heard your tune before and it doesn't get better with repetition. I'm not publishing my tax return to satisfy a nasty, pox-laden shithead such as yourself. You aren't entitled to that level of detail about ANYONE's life here.

[elfkin477]

Some numbers I have heard...50% of the country gets cable, so they aren't affected. Of the remaining that use an antenna, only 7% isn't digital ready.

So after years of warnings and a year of government handouts, with 93% of the affected group ready for the change, we have to wait some more?To be fair, though, it hasn't really been a year of them being able to get the boxes. There was an article several months back warning people not to send for them too soon, because the non-replacable coupons were only good for 90 days, and they were being issued long before the boxes actually hit the market. I don't think I saw a box in the store before the end of the summer, did you?

[Munch]

To be fair, though, it hasn't really been a year of them being able to get the boxes. There was an article several months back warning people not to send for them too soon, because the non-replacable coupons were only good for 90 days, and they were being issued long before the boxes actually hit the market. I don't think I saw a box in the store before the end of the summer, did you?
There have been digital boxes available at Best Buy for about 2.5 years.

[Carol Stream]

No, you stupid cunt, I've mentioned state, local, Federal, sales, social security and ALL TAXES. Stick a sock in it, you jacked up little tart, we've heard your tune before and it doesn't get better with repetition. I'm not publishing my tax return to satisfy a nasty, pox-laden shithead such as yourself. You aren't entitled to that level of detail about ANYONE's life here.

Got it. You're not paying any federal income taxes at all, but you won't admit it. And you pay all these other taxes, and by golly, you feel entitled. To paraphrase you, why shouldn't you take advantage of a benefit that is offered, and oh, NEENER NEENER to those that are paying for it.

You are a piece of work.

[Broomstick]

Where the FUCK did you get the idea I somehow DON'T pay Federal taxes. You fucking dumb cunt, NOW you're accusing me of breaking the law?

Yes, I goddamned paid Federal taxes - NOT just social security but regular Federal income tax - in 2007. I have already had Federal income taxes withheld from both my unemployment benefits AND from a part time job I held in 2008.

YOU GODDAMN FUCKING JACKED UP CUNT, HOW DARE YOU ACCUSE ME OF BREAKING THE LAW YOU PIECE OF SHIT ASSWIPE?!

Seriously, where the FUCK did you get the idea I don't pay Federal income tax? Go to fucking hell you diseased goat-felching whore. You are fucking out of line to accuse me of being a criminal. Who the FUCK do you think you are, bitch? Don't EVER accuse me of being a criminal again you piece of shit unless you can damn well back it up. What a repulsive, disgusting, evil, vindictive shithead you are. How did you get to be so vile, do you lick Satan's ashtray when you wake up in the morning or something?

[Frank]

Got it. You're not paying any federal income taxes at all, but you won't admit it. And you pay all these other taxes, and by golly, you feel entitled. To paraphrase you, why shouldn't you take advantage of a benefit that is offered, and oh, NEENER NEENER to those that are paying for it.

Carol, did you notice the word "Federal" in the post you quoted?

Anyway, this thread is a lot less fun now that we're yelling at each other about taxes. We can do that anytime; how often do we get to yell at each other about delaying the digital changover?

:p

[Carol Stream]

Seriously, where the FUCK did you get the idea I don't pay Federal income tax?

Some 33% of Americans pay no federal income tax at all. Based on the fact that your 2008 income consisted of unemployment benefits and a part-time job, it's likely you are in that group.

Dial it back a notch, woman.

[Broomstick]

FUCK you bitch - you accused of being a tax cheat you piece of shit. I don't have to "dial it back a notch". YOU need to stop accusing people of committing felonies with no proof whatsoever, fuckstick.

And, again - you CLEARLY missed the fact that Federal income tax has already been withheld from both those unemployment benefits and the income from the part time job. You also clearly blew past the fact that in addition to those jobs I have ALSO been working as an independent contractor. How much - if any - of the withheld tax I will get back remains to be seen. YOU certainly don't know that number, shit-for-brains.

I'm poor, not dishonest. Unlike you, you slimeball.

[Loach]

Maybe your bias has blinded you. Among the flaws I have enumerated, aside from those in this thread, are these:


His naivete with regard to the nefarious intentions of others
His vulnerabilities to exploitation due to the moral depravity of people in Washington
His reliance on the goodwill of wily Congressional leaders
His natural kindness and the fragility it exposes
The possibility that he might fail altogether due to the pettiness and gluttonous greed of others
I could go on, but I think that alone is a considerable list.

You amaze me. Obama is a lawyer. He had to wade through the cesspool of Chicago politics. You really think he is that naive? Your list sounds like the answer to the old job interview question (What is your worst fault? Well gosh darn sometimes I just work too hard). If he really is that naive we need a new president. This one is too soft for the job.

[Steve MB]

So far you've mentioned sales tax, and Social Security tax. Neither of which support said program.

*Pats Carol on the head* I hate to break the news to you, dear, but the Social Security Lock Box is like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. It doesn't actually exist. (If you hadn't heard the bad news about those last two... well, consider two more apologies offered.) The federal government collects Social Security taxes, and immediately spends the money for whatever it is they're buying at the moment... tanks, cheese, uniforms, office space, converter boxes, whatever.

[Carol Stream]

FUCK you bitch - you accused of being a tax cheat you piece of shit. I don't have to "dial it back a notch". YOU need to stop accusing people of committing felonies with no proof whatsoever, fuckstick.

And, again - you CLEARLY missed the fact that Federal income tax has already been withheld from both those unemployment benefits and the income from the part time job.

Withheld does not equal paid, dear.

[Frank]

Withheld does not equal paid, dear.
Y'know, I've spent this whole thread being fairly disgusted with Broomstick, but you're really climbing the charts.

First you refused to accept that the second "2007" in her post was a typo, and now you refuse to accept that she has to pay taxes for last year.

If she made more than about $9,000 last year, she pays at least $1 in federal income tax. Since she stated that she had income from unemployment, a part-time job, and some 1099 jobs, I think the chances are pretty good that she'll be taxed.

I see no reason to doubt this, and - other than personal antagonism - I don't see why you should doubt it either.

[Carol Stream]

If she made more than about $9,000 last year, she pays at least $1 in federal income tax. Since she stated that she had income from unemployment, a part-time job, and some 1099 jobs, I think the chances are pretty good that she'll be taxed.

I see no reason to doubt this, and - other than personal antagonism - I don't see why you should doubt it either.

I'm not convinced that is the case. It was brought up during the campaign that some 33-35% of Americans don't pay any federal income tax at all, and that percentage would increase to 37-39% under both Obama's and McCain's plans.

It simply can't be true that 33% of Americans make < $9000/yr.

[Influential Panda]

I'm not convinced that is the case. It was brought up during the campaign that some 33-35% of Americans don't pay any federal income tax at all,
By whom? Perhaps they were using your, uh, "conservative" definition of paying, which for some inexplicable reason does not include payroll withholdings.

[Carol Stream]

By whom? Perhaps they were using your, uh, "conservative" definition of paying, which for some inexplicable reason does not include payroll withholdings.

By both campaigns, including the public, mainstream discussion thereof. And federal income tax withholding is STILL not paying taxes.

[Frank]

It simply can't be true that 33% of Americans make < $9000/yr.
Well, no, I don't buy that either, which makes me doubt that "33% don't pay tax" is accurate. 33% including people (including children) with no income - maybe. (Yes, I know there is EIC. I don't know how many filers EIC turns from tax due to a tax credit.)

The personal exemption for a single person on FIT is $3,500; the standard deduction (in lieu of itemization) is $5,450. So a single person with only those deductions who makes between $8,950 and 8,965 owes one dollar in tax.

I'm not going to calc Broomstick's figures, since I don't know them - and neither do you! - but if we assume that she is filing married jointly with no dependents, we can double the above numbers.

Both of those numbers are below a full time job at minimum wage. I have to assume that her income is above that - or, well, shit, she'd be working at McDonalds already.

[Carol Stream]

Well, no, I don't buy that either, which makes me doubt that "33% don't pay tax" is accurate

I'll look for some cites, but it won't be until tomorrow. Getting late and all.

[Frank]

I'll look for some cites, but it won't be until tomorrow. Getting late and all.
OK. Appreciate it, in advance.

[pulykamell]

Haven't had a chance to go through it, but these may be the numbers (http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1410.html) Carol is citing.

[Frank]

Haven't had a chance to go through it, but these may be the numbers (http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1410.html) Carol is citing.
Thanks. That indicates that children are included in the count.

[Carol Stream]

OK. Appreciate it, in advance.

"As shown in Table 1 below, the Tax Foundation estimates that there will be 47 million tax returns with zero income tax liability in 2009 under current law. That's one-third of all tax returns, and those 47 million tax returns represent 96 million individuals."

The article goes on to explain that the 33% of filers with 0 tax liability is estimated to increase to 44% under Obama's plan and 43% under McCain's plan.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/23631.html

[Broomstick]

Well, cuntface, if being wealthy enough to pay taxes chaps your ass you can always quit your job and go live in a cardboard box under a bridge with the rest of the freeloaders living that cushy lifestyle you resent so much.