For the life of me, I don’t get it? Since when is it neccessary for everyone to have TV? Is this a need? Help me understand.
We’re subsidizing because the govt decided to make analog TVs obsolete without any real recourse for analog TV owners. Plus, most people get their news and emergency notifications via TV now.
For what it’s worth, I think it’s pretty weird to still have an analog TV. I didn’t realize there were still areas that didn’t have cable or satellite TV.
The FCC auctioned off that old analog TV spectrum for $19.6 billion. The people of this country, the taxpayers, own those airwaves. The coupon funds are coming directly from the proceeds of those auctions, in other words, the new users of the old analog spectrum are paying a large chunk of the cost for consumers to switch to the new digital format.
I wasn’t aware of that- it makes me feel a bit better.
For slowguy: I thought digital TV waves could be broadcast over the air, and analog/digital was a function of the TV’s reception? Could be wrong here.
Finally, I’m still inclined to say that if you can’t afford TV, odds are good you should be doing something else anyhow.
I think it has to do with legal definitions. The airwaves are public. Cable is private. To force people to go to cable or a dish is seen by some as discriminating against those who can’t or won’t spend money on tv.
I have cable, but to get our local channels I will either need to upgrade from basic cable, or get one of those boxes.
I don’t know about all this. I can’t really say that watching a tv is a constitutional right. Some, no doubt, do.
(I’d love to know the exact phrase, but) there’s a Roman proverb, speaking of government, that roughly translated means “Give the people food and entertainment—and we will have our way with them.”
They’ve been talking about this on the radio a lot.
As someone with no cable, satellite or analog reception capability, I can swear and attest to the fact that you can actually live without TV.
Anything worth watching is on DVD without commercials anyway.
There are millions of people with Analog T.V’s, which means they are too big to fail.
“For what it’s worth, I think it’s pretty weird to still have an analog TV. I didn’t realize there were still areas that didn’t have cable or satellite TV.”
What does having cable or satellite available have anything to do with it? Why should people be forced into paying an ongoing monthly fee because a government whim took away something they were getting for free? Millions of people paid a one time cost to purchase a TV so they could receive free over the air commercial television signals. A government action that was not forseen at the time of these purchases took away the use of these TVs. The coupons are to partially compensate people so they can continue to receive the OTA signals.
I have not purchased a new TV in over 10 years. I see no need to get a new TV until my existing ones die. I don’t simply dispose of a perfectly fine TV just to get the latest and greatest thing. Millions of people are just like me. We find what we get from commercial OTA broadcasters to meet our needs. We have no need to pay for the availability of 200 channels of garbage to get one or two that would be of interest.
The whole issue revolves around it being a government mandate. People would likely have bought the converters on their own if the broadcasters just starting phasing out analog on their own over a period of time. Having all analog signals removed at once through government mandate brought about the necessity of the coupon program. The coupons have no value unless they are used.
BTW, the converters do provide much higher picture quality on standard TVs than the typical analog reception provided.
It does come down to public vs private. You can’t force people who used to get something for free to suddenly pay for it or lose it. Not everyone can afford a new TV and don’t have the means to pay for cable. They could be using a 10 year old TV and be on a fixed income. To force them to pay x hundreds of dollars for a new TV, most of which are flat screens and expensive, so that they can get the local news might be against the law. Not sure but some research probably would turn that up.
Could they not turn on the radio for news? I see all the points…to me, just another example of govt getting into things they shouldn’t.
Well, until the radio signals go digital.
If the government is forcing people to upgrade their technology to get the same services they once got for free the government has an obligation to help them upgrade. They aren’t buying everyone a new TV, just helping them purchase the converters.
"What does having cable or satellite available have anything to do with it? "
I just thought pretty much everyone had one or the other by now.
"You can’t force people who used to get something for free to suddenly pay for it or lose it. "
Sure you can. But that’s not what’s happening here. In this case, the people were already paying for the air waves through tax dollars.
"What does having cable or satellite available have anything to do with it? "
I just thought pretty much everyone had one or the other by now.
Availability has little to do with it. Many people don’t have cable/satellite due to the expense. Many people also don’t have cell phones or internet service for the same reason. Many of the people who don’t have cable/satellite are on fixed incomes. Some, like me, are frugal in some areas in order to have money for other things - like triathlon.
Just another example of the severe disconnect I sense from some the people that post on this forum. There are 10’s of millions of Americans that don’t live in metropolitan areas, don’t have the money for satelite, and free over-the-airwaves TV is the only thing they have ever known. It is their lifeline and even newpaper subscriptions have gotten expensive. Ask the elderly on fixed incomes if cable or satelite is an option. Not everybody has plasma HD TV, Blueray players, and $1500 coffee makers, nor do they desire them. But wait, if they can’t afford satelite they must not be working hard enough.
"But wait, if they can’t afford satelite they must not be working hard enough. "
Who said that?
I’m not going to quote anybody but after 3 plus years on this site I have read enough posts to come to the conclusion that many people view low income people as just not trying/working enough. You know, pulling oneself up by the bootstraps kind of stuff. The coupons are aimed at folks where $50 IS a lot of money and that without the converter will no longer have access to TV and believe it or not there are a lot of poor, rural people in this country.
Robc,
When we are running trillion dollar deficits, I guess I think some things aren’t neccessary…but hey, that’s just me. Having free TV is not a right. As slowguys said, not once has anyone on this thread beat the bootstraps drum.
I’m amazed at the number of people here (well maybe not) who can somehow justify this.
As if tv has somehow become yet another entitlement.
sigh…
revenue generated from sale of public airwaves more than makes up for cost of “subsidizing” boxes. i don’t see how this ends the debate here. the government sold airwaves which were held in trust for the public. i see no problem in restoring those who are adversely affected by this conversion of property to their situation prior to the sale.