Congress Pays You $3 Billion to Keep Watching TV 511
Felix the Cat writes "After budgets cuts led to the layoff of engineers and scientists at NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a US Senate committee has approved a $3 billion dollar subsidy to assist Americans in their difficult transition to digital television in 2009. The old analog television spectrum will be auctioned off to the highest bidder. The transition date was chosen to not interfere with college football bowl games or basketball playoffs." From the article: "The draft of a House bill would end analog transmissions on Dec. 31, 2008. It does not mention a subsidy for set-top converter boxes. So, lawmakers will likely have to work out differences between the two bills, though Stevens said he did not anticipate a big fight with the House over the deadline or the subsidy."
Stupid. (Score:3, Insightful)
How about CONSUMERS pay for new TVs or converters themselves? They don't get cable free. They don't get a free CD palyer when cassettes go out of style.
And if someone MUST baby the consumer, how about the fucking TELEVISION INDUSTRY do the subsidizing, instead? Why in the fucking hell should tax money go toward it? If we're going to spend billions of tax dollars on televisions, let's spend it subsidizing people to NOT own them?
Seriously, we already fucking subsidize breeders and marriage. Now we want to add television watching to that?!
I so fucking give up. You win. Where do I go for the nearest de-education center so I can join the mind-numbed consumer masses?
Re:Stupid. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Stupid. (Score:2)
Naive a little? (Score:3, Informative)
(Coming soon, the judicial branch too! Hooray cronyism!)
Yes, in case it's not obvious, I'm with the O.P. on this one.
Re:Naive a little? (Score:3, Insightful)
What a bunch of useless retards we all turned out to be huh?
Re:Naive a little? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Naive a little? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Naive a little? (Score:3, Insightful)
And a fat lot of good that does. Since third parties are so pitifully marginalized there isn't a hope in hell of one of their candidates ever getting elected to major office, I get a choice between Sleezeball A or Sleezeball B. You only have to take a look at Kerry and Bush to see the truth of this. It always boils down to whatever candidate is *slightly* less evil than the other.
Max
Re:Naive a little? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Naive a little? (Score:5, Interesting)
You must have watched different debates than I did. I came away hating both candidates. Bush is a simple manager that leans heavily on his "experts", and can't think on the fly to save his life; Kerry is a carreer politician who will say anything to anyone to get elected. We need to take the caucus/primary power away from those notheastern small states. Dean could have solidly beat Bush, if he hadn't "scared" those poor farmers with his scream.
I voted for Kerry, but it was the most distateful vote I have ever cast.
It wasn't an obvious call by any means, and I'm not surprised that people were conflicted. Trying to pick between Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum isn't fun.
Re:Naive a little? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not that I like Bush (quite the opposite, actually), but this isn't automatically a bad thing. As long as he picks the appropriate experts and actually listens to their advice, one can be a very effective leader with this sort of setup, president or manager in some company.
And Bush isn't dumb. People like to say he is, but he's really not. But seriously, nobody has enough time to learn everyth
Re:Naive a little? (Score:3, Interesting)
As long as he picks the appropriate experts and actually listens to their advice, one can be a very effective leader with this sort of setup, president or manager in some company.
The problem is that he did pick an appropriate expert, Colin Powell, then cut him out of the loop and ignored his good advice when it didn't fit with his (Bush's) preconceptions. Now, he has only neocons for advisors - not appropriate for the "uniter" he claims to be.
Re:Naive a little? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Naive a little? (Score:5, Funny)
Same here. I'm smart, pretty well informed, watched the debates, and voted for Bush.
You know, it's possible for someone to see the same facts as you and interpret them differently. That doesn't imply stupidity on either part, just different perspectives.
Re:Naive a little? (Score:3, Funny)
This is why we don't let people score their own IQ tests.
You make yourself sound stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
Those people who voted for Bush knew exactly what they were voting for. Calling them stupid makes you appear stupid for not understanding that these people actually agree with Bush's
Re:Naive a little? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Naive a little? (Score:5, Insightful)
Humor us. What are the appreciable differences?
They were both strongly in favor of invading Iraq. And staying in Iraq. Are you suggesting that Kerry would have done the responsible thing and try to institute the Draft? Would that reknown leader of men convince the Congress to vote for such a measure? If so, why couldn't Kerry ever sponsor and pass a piece of significant legislation?
Are their border control policies different? Would Kerry beef up the border security, increase deportations, institute guest worker visas, and increase convictions of business owners that hire illegal immegrants?
Has Kerry helped push any legislation would show he understands the onerous cost of the federal gov't?
Face it. The boys at the top picked someone who wasn't going to upset the apple cart. And until THOSE losers are booted out of power, no matter what loser the Republicans put up, the Democrats will put up another loser.
And finally, we live in a country of dumbasses who vote, and dumbasses who don't vote. Until you can fix them, they'll be voting for "a Bush" every time.
Many differences (Score:5, Insightful)
But the difference is that Bush HAD gone into a war, under what many prospective Kerry voters considered false pretenses, and for that he deserved to lose his office, even if his policies for the future were exactly identical to Kerry's.
For example, Kerry might have been able to get foreign assistance in Iraq, not because his policies were better than Bush's, but because for many countries the answer would be an automatic "No" to Bush. They'd say Bush had brought it on himself, whereas Kerry would be trying to fix a situation he inherited. That's not a guarantee, but there was no hope of any world support under Bush.
Actually, that's not even the most basic difference. The most basic difference is in the Supreme Court. It was obvious that Bush would appoint at least one new Supreme Court justice, and that he would almost certainly chose an anti-Roe nominee, whereas Kerry would almost certainly chose a pro-Roe nominee. The way it turned out was somewhat more complicated, but at the time both sets of voters may have had abortion (and other things that the Supreme Court weighs in on) at the front of their minds.
There were numerous other policy differences: privatization of social security, concerns over Bush's pro-business style (in particular, the energy policy for which many Democrats feel Bush should be punished), environmental policies.
I'm not trying to debate what should be done in Iraq, or to favor one candidate or the other. I'm just saying that the presence of similarities between the two doesn't mean that there weren't also differences.
But one last bone I'll pick: not all senators are there to sponsor legislation. An awful lot of work goes on in Congress that doesn't get names on bills. The details of the bills are where serious work gets done, not in the overall thrust. A President is as much a negotiator as a policymaker, and being good at those back-room skills getting bills actually passed is at least as important as initiating legislation. John McCain, for example, is more respected for his ability to make the resulting legislation reasonable than for the bills that he himself has sponsored.
Again, I'm not using this to comment on the election itself or take a stand on who you should have voted for. I'm just saying that if you're not seeing any differences, and you're not seeing Kerry's accomplishments, then you need to look more closely.
Re:Naive a little? (Score:5, Insightful)
On the plus side I will say that the level of transparency of corruption is much higher than I've encountered elsewhere in the world and you, usually, don't get killed for investigating who bought which politician, which I've seen before.
Re:Stupid. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Stupid. (Score:5, Insightful)
auctioned spectrum = BAD, unless its in lease form. I loathe that big businesses pay big bucks one time and profit forever off it. Govt should get a cut of profits generated by that spectrum forever.
Re:Auction TV Channels? No New Stations? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stupid. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Don't you understand? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't you understand? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sign me up, I'm converted.
Re:Don't you understand? (Score:4, Insightful)
I hear ya, man. I'd love it if I could make everybody conform to my standard of living.
Re:Don't you understand? (Score:3, Insightful)
But who you should really be criticizing is the government! Their lifestyle is to be paid off by media companies to make sure you see ads and continue to SHOP SHOP SHOP. So they're making sure that you have a boob tube to deliver ads right to your house. The media companies win, and then the politicians get more bribes.
All for forcing their lifestyle on you.
(If they want that so badly, why can't they finance this out of their "contribution" fund? I want my taxes to do some
Re:Don't you understand? (Score:3, Insightful)
Because corporations will externalize any cost they can. The bill for getting lobbyists to convince Congress to approve a $3,000,000,000 TV subsidy out of the government's (read: the American people's) pockets probably comes out to a lot less than $3,000,000,000.
Re:Don't you understand? (Score:5, Insightful)
When TV gets turns off, expect a jump in the domestic violence rate.
Re:Don't you understand? (Score:4, Insightful)
Books and conversations produce independent thought. I think the politicians know exactly what they are doing -- maintaining status quo. People in their alpha wave zone in front of the TV being shown things like the play by play on the "war on terror", or the next plague of the week that kills 800 people in China or a couple of birds, and of course the required car advertisement that is aired at every commercial break between 6 and 11 PM.
If it were me, I would be willing to pay much more than $3 billion of somebody else's money to keep them quiet.
Re:Stupid. (Score:5, Informative)
But we do get OTA broadcasts for free, the converters ain't cheap, and digital television requires a strong signal, which most of us can't get with those $20 rabbit ears. I get 17 channels on my 10 year old TV for free. Many channels are snowy, but watchable. A poor-quality digital signal is like watching a scratched DVD.
And as for cable & satellite, most consumers will end up buying the converters-- either by paying directly, or through added hidden fees from the television provider. "The box is free, but there's a $100 service charge".
how about the fucking TELEVISION INDUSTRY do the subsidizing, instead? Why in the fucking hell should tax money go toward it?
Because the government is forcing the television broadcasters to give up their portion of the analog spectrum, in favor of the new Digital standard. Even if Digital Television does reach 85% of American households, few companies would willingly lose 15% of their audience-- nobody is willing to take the first jump, which is why the FCC is mandating an end date to all broadcasters at once.
I agree with you. The whole thing is stupid, but it's just one more item in a long list of $5000 HDTVs and consumers who pay $100 to watch commercials.
Re:Stupid. (Score:3, Informative)
That's because, at present, most digital channels use UHF. Rabbit ears are really only good for getting VHF stations.
Re:Stupid. (Score:2)
De-education has been modernized! You can watch it in full High-Definition with Dolby Surround Sound!
Tune in to one of thousands of different deeducation centers!! Channels 2-2000, 7 days a week, 24 hours a day.
Re:Stupid. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Stupid. (Score:5, Insightful)
The government didn't destory all cassette tapes six years after the CD player was first sold to the public, now did they?
CONSUMERS have already paid billions of dollars for televisions that work perfectly fine with free over the air analog signals. The government, in its infinite wisdom, has decided that free over the air analog signals should disappear, instantly making all of that equipment obsolete unless a digital converter box is installed. The government, in its infinite wisdom, has also decided that it will sell/lease this signal space for billions of dollars to private enterprise, with some fraction reserved for public service use.
It seems perfectly reasonable for the government to dedicate a portion of the revenues that it will realize with this giant electromagnetic spectrum swap to compensate CONSUMERS who couldn't care less about free over the air digital television verses free over the air analog television.
And if someone MUST baby the consumer, how about the fucking TELEVISION INDUSTRY do the subsidizing, instead? Why in the fucking hell should tax money go toward it?
Read the above. The purchasers of the old free over the air analog spectrum are in effect subsidizing the conversion. It's only "tax money" if you ignore this major detail.
If we're going to spend billions of tax dollars on televisions, let's spend it subsidizing people to NOT own them?
Because this is a democracy, and the "we don't even own a television" portion of the population has even less political power than PETA.
Seriously, we already fucking subsidize breeders and marriage.
Economic and political trends in Western Europe and Japan both show why subsidizing the "breeders" is a sound economic policy. I'm not even touching the comment on marriage.
Where do I go for the nearest de-education center so I can join the mind-numbed consumer masses?
As a married man with a child, a graduate engineering degree, a law degree, and a television, I officially invite you to go for (sic) the nearest tall building and take a flying leap. You don't need a de-education center, since your prior education seems to have failed to instill any sort of critical reasoning ability.
Re:Stupid. (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, this has been coming for a very long time. What the government failed to do was mandate that all new equipment meet the new standards, so many people are still buying TV sets today that won't work tomorrow. It's insane that they're even proposing these changes without having equipment available to
Re:Stupid. (Score:4, Informative)
Wrong. See http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/ DOC-225221A1.pdf [fcc.gov].
Get rid of your television! (Score:5, Interesting)
Last year, I sold my NTSC television (36" Sony Trinitron) on eBay for $200 with pedestal. I figure I was out about $1000 over the 6 years I owned it.
Guess what I did next?
Wrong. I didn't replace it. My wife and I have no television. No ads. None of the soundbytes. No cable bill. No TiVo bill. No MythTV Mayhem. No equipment to keep thinking about upgrading. No worries about the broadcast flag. Nobody trying to push my buttons over the screen.
All that and more free space in my living room for the couch.
The funny thing is...we don't really miss TV and that gives us time to pursue other things. We'll catch a glimse of a show or a movie on the tube if we're out with friends or whatnot, but that's about it. Even then, most of the time we just turn the thing off.
We have survived our first year without a television in the house (as of 10/10!) and our lives have become much more enriched as a result.
speaking of 12 step programs... (Score:5, Funny)
So that'll be 25 years without watching the tube come September. Only problem is the odd looks when I completely miss TV-culture references. Like Mr. or Dr. Steinfeld and some show about friends ("Friends"?). Means nothing to me. Nor have I seen any "Star Trek" shows since the original, although I do understand that there are about eleventy-two subvarieties of it now, with talking robots and stuff.
I've considered explaining I've just returned from twenty years in the Australian outback, but I can't do the accent.
Re:speaking of 12 step programs... (Score:3, Funny)
Just say "Sorry mate, I'd love to show you my Australian accent but I only saw two people in my twenty years there, and one of them was mute after that unfortunate incident with the wildlife. Care for a biscuit?"
Re:Get rid of your television! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Stupid. (Score:4, Informative)
Of course it's obvious that it's not them who pay but us, the people. However, since Congress is elected by us, anything they do is indirectly representative of our will. Therefore, it can be said that the majority of the population want their taxes to go towards this.
It's called a democracy. If you don't like it, use your first amendment rights to speak up about it and organize people to either vote for politicians who would oppose this bill, or to use your constitutional right to run for office yourself. The only excuse you have for not having politicians who are on your side in office is that your side isn't as involved in the democratic process as your opposition. That, and they're rich, and you're not.
Re:Stupid. (Score:3, Insightful)
That's exactly what everybody is doing here, and yet it seems to upset you.
That, and they're rich, and you're not.
That really is more to the point, isn't it?
We pay congress to have congress pay us (Score:2)
Congress pays us to watch TV.
Congress retains 10% through PAC's, graft etc.
See a problem here?
*grumbles* Like I watch enough TV anyway...
Money Maker (Score:2)
2. Buy Stock
3. Make government grant, letting lots of people get said set-tops
4. Profit.
Mmmmm... Wish I would've thought of that... oh wait, I'd prolly go to jail if I did it... nevermind.
--Luke
ChristianNerds.com News [christiannerds.com] - If you're one too, it's probably of interest to you.
I for one welcome our new DRM overlords. (Score:2)
Re:I for one welcome our new DRM overlords. (Score:2, Insightful)
Radio is paid for through advestising.
If a company wishes to charge you for using their service then they have the right to.
Re:I for one welcome our new DRM overlords. (Score:2)
By all means, companies have the right to charge what they want. But I miss the old days, when buying something meant you owned it, and the US Government didn't mandate technology switches to help companies.
Re:I for one welcome our new DRM overlords. (Score:2)
talk about socialist! (Score:2)
don't kid yourselves (Score:3, Interesting)
Pirate TV (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Pirate TV (Score:5, Informative)
They're quite large, and require copious amounts of electricity, which they turn into two things:
1. A TV signal that will step all over newly-assigned public emergency frequencies.
2. Heat, which you will ostensibly be paying "teh big bux" for.
Perhaps you should revisit your intentions.
Well (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent (Score:2)
won't happen (Score:5, Insightful)
you don't have to replace the TV (Score:2)
Oh, and in case you haven't realized, people vote with their asses.
Re:you don't have to replace the TV (Score:2)
Re:you don't have to replace the TV (Score:2)
Re: which begs the obvious question... (Score:3, Interesting)
While one certainly is stuck with the dollar value/channel, there must be some nugget of a program that is justifying your $50+/month expenditure.
I don't pay $50+/month for shit. You are the biggest loser.
Re:won't happen (Score:2)
They can take my TV when they pry the remote from my cold, dead fingers! When analog TV is outlawed, only outlaws will have analog TV!
Re:won't happen (Score:2)
Suckers. (Score:2)
Damn feds with your wasteful no-bid contracts! Why don’t ya try haggling once in a while?
Comments Schmomments Lets get to the real issue (Score:5, Funny)
Will any of this subsidy affect my $1.99 Lost episodes?
Campaign vehicle (Score:2, Insightful)
More of the story... (Score:5, Informative)
The digital TV transition is intended to free up the 700-800 Mhz (appx) spectrum to be auctioned by the FCC for advanced services and for use by public safety organizations. McCain made a big deal of the digital transition after Katrina hit due to the problems with interagency communication.
The $3 billion in subsidy comes from the auction of the spectrum. The people who will eventually pay for it are the users of the spectrum or customers of the companies who purchase the spectrum. Let me be clear, this $3 billion isn't coming from some other agency or program, it is coming from the proceeds of the auction.
So, submitter, if you're going to flame bait about your pet project being cut back at least do it with half a clue.
Things like HDTV and multicasting are nice side effects of the transition, but don't be fooled, this is mostly about money. Congress wants that money in its coffers and had planned for analog turn off at the end of this year when the transition first started ten years ago.
Re:More of the story... (Score:2)
Speaking of tinfoil hats... (Score:2)
blame bureaucracy, not technology. (Score:2)
I find it hard to believe that technology was the issue in that situation. I had more information on hand while the shit was hitting the fan in New Orleans than it seems like a lot of government agencies did, and that was by only using IRC, Fark, and audio streams of police and military radio scanners in the area.
And I am in Japan!
Without pointing fingers at anyone, it is q
Re:More of the story... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's still public money and it's still a subsidy and government handout to big corporations. I mean, what's the point of using a public resource to generate revenue when you hand the proceeds of the acution right back to the people who paid it?
Let me be clear, this $3 billion isn't coming from some other agency or program, it is coming from the proceeds of the auction.
Yes, and those $3 billion should go to funding NASA, not TV receivers.
maybe TV will just die (Score:3, Interesting)
Bread and Circuses (Score:3, Interesting)
It would be nice if I could just wash my hands of politics, insist that the least governance would be the best, and just vote for those who would leave power in the hands of individuals more and more, in light of the constant incompitence of politicans... but I've also seen the affects of what "small goverment" can do over the past years. I've decided to vote Democrat in the next forseeable elections, because at least they seem to propose to, and have in the past few administrations, use public resources to do more than just celebrate their own personal interests. Perhaps then, at least, the Republicans will learn to compete again in terms of function, not just rhetoric. I'd hate to see this last batch of Republicans rewarded for their actions.
Ryan Fenton
Digital TV = anal rape (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's how it went:
Broadcast Industry asks for bandwidth for HDTV
FCC says "OK, we'll set aside bandwidth for HDTV"
FCC says "What standards?"
Industry says 'No Standards Please' and come up with EIGHTEEN recommended formats for HDTV. I am not shitting you.
FCC says "Isn't 18 different standards a bit much?"
Industry says "Shut the fuck up FCC, we know what we are doing. The 'market' will handle this!"
Consumer Electronics dudes whine "18 formats make every thing cost more, you are fucking us!"
FCC says "OK, it's your call on standards, 18 formats is fine, infact there are NO STANDARDS AT ALL, 'cause we are letting the 'market decide', but you start broadcasting HDTV now or we take back the FREE bandwidth."
Industry says "What? We really just want the free bandwidth. You really want us to do HDTV??
Congress says "Fuck you Industry. Broadcast HDTV or we'll legislate your asses back to Sun-day!"
Industry says "We're fucked. 18 formats? Why the hell did we do that? Let's change it."
Consumer Electronics dudes say "You ain't changing shit. We are already building the boxes you said you wanted built."
FCC says "Yah, ya boneheads we told you 18 was too many, now you gotta live with it."
Industry says "Well FCC, will you at least make the cable companies carry the HDTV at no charge?"
Cable companies say "Fuck you! You gotta pay! Bwah-ha-ha-ha!"
FCC says "Yep, no federal mandated on HDTV must carry, we are letting 'the market' handle that"
Industry says "We are so fucked. We are spending 5-10 million per TV station in hardware alone and have 1000 HDTV viewers per city, even in LA!"
Consumer at home says "Where is my HDTV? Why does it cost so much? Fuck it, I'm sticking with cable/DirecTV."
Consumer electronics dudes, broadcast industry, FCC, and congress all cry. Cable companies laugh and make even bigger profits.
Re:Digital TV = anal rape (Score:2)
Small-Government Republican Congress (Score:4, Insightful)
business opportunity missed! (Score:3, Funny)
Standardization (Score:2, Interesting)
Just curious... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Just curious... (Score:2)
Re:Just curious... (Score:2)
Re:Just curious... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Just curious... (Score:2)
Oh, so the blacks go coarse and fragment? Fantastic.
I think I agree with others who think that the digital TV switchover has been, and will likely continue to be a complete and total fuckup.
Re:Just curious... (Score:3, Informative)
Who are you kidding? (Score:3, Interesting)
First, there is the money raised by auctioning RF spectrum licenses.
Second, there is the fact that all will be digital at that time, and someone has to get distribution pork.
Third, MS and others are already lining the politicians pockets to make everything come out on their side.
We (the USA), as a nation (if not a larger audience), have failed miserably to trace where the money will be going. This 'subsidy' of HDTV set top tuners is nothing more than the low hanging fruit on a very large and prolific tree. Currently, the rule of the land is that when this happens, cable companies will not have to share thier pipe to your house with anyone else. This is supposed to foster more competative and wireless services. Fiber, cable, DSL, and broadcast mediums will have to work hard to keep up with new broadband all-IP services. EVERYONE will have to have a new set-top tuner box... This 3 billion is for the people in mobile homes in deepest darkest Arkansas and such places, who will not pay for a new HDTV set to get three local channels and PBS.
What is at stake is a very big pie, and everyone wants one or more of the pieces: Digital movies on demand 24/7, digital music on demand 24/7, IP radio and television, mobile IPTV and radio, VoIP calling with both mobile and fixed, and the list literally goes on for hours.
As soon as there is a huge ubiquitous (I dislike that word) IP network, we can begin offering services like your fridge that keeps the shopping list up to date, emails it to you at the grocery store on your PDA, or automatically enters it to the local grocer and a high school kid shows up with the groceries at your door at 5:15 p.m. That is just one scenario, and there are thousands more.
The real issue is who will be selling you those services? If you have comcast cable, you can bet they will offer them, but so will your wireless carrier, and the WiMax network provider and the WiFi provider, and it will be worse than you can imagine for billing and value for services rendered. Can you imagine a refridgerator that is only compatible with Comcast? or worse, AOL?
What is happening in the news currently is only the tip of the iceburg, and I'm talking about one much larger than sank the Titanic!
I'm sorely hoping that F/OSS has a strong hand of guidance on how such services are offered and how they are compatible. All this DRM @!#$@$% is far more dangerous to your future health than you have yet thought of, because more than music and movies is involved. I am hoping that the F/OSS community has such things in the scope of where their development efforts are going. I know that MS and others already have this on their radar scopes.
--
Every so often in history, it appears that someone from the future has come back to tell us something. Did Linus return to fix the future?
Broadcast digital is more than 90% (Score:2)
So, you're right to say that IP-delivered TV is just around the bend. But where you missed it is that Congress really believes they'll be able to auction a lot of frequencies for new applications and raise money. That an
And what do /. editors do to keep you reading /.? (Score:5, Informative)
"The subsidy program would be paid for by money raised from the auction of the analog spectrum the broadcasters are vacating."
"The sale of the analog spectrum is expected to raise at least $10 billion. Besides the $3 billion for converter boxes, the Senate bill proposes reserving $1 billion for public safety to buy new radio communications equipment and $250 million for a national alert system. Another $5 billion would be set aside for debt reduction."
Now can we get back to our regular dose of Google/iPod stories?
Someone please counterague these... (Score:2, Interesting)
Can the government somehow create censorship with this switch? With the way they will send t.v. programming out, is it possible to put certain restrictions (as opposed to options) on programming?
Is television THAT important? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm glad the government is concerned that I won't get my daily fix of White House talking points, commercials for boner pills, and HiDef Every Body Love Raymond reruns. Yet, there are other concerns in my life that could probably benefit from 3 billion dollars. In particular - the local trailer park, I mean high school, could use a little love. Four permanent walls and some sort of roof-ish thing would be nice.
Or, at the very least, I hear we suffered a wee bit of storm damage in the gulf coast, and there's also that whole "war" thing.
But, who knows. Ray Romano in HD. Perhaps the digital signal will allow me to understand why that show is funny.
What? No broadcast flag? (Score:4, Insightful)
Great... (Score:2)
(Still bitter over the cancellations of Firefly and Futurama)
sensationalism (Score:2)
If you read the linked slashdot story- 300 engineers were laid off.
Sorry, but this irritates the bejeezus out of me when people make a big deal over a bunch of government employees getting fired. Corporations fire 10,000 people over a couple days (to avoid legisla
grossly inaccurate (Score:5, Informative)
The article summary says:
This is simply not the case. If you read the FCC's FAQ [fcc.gov] on the subject of digital television (which is what this is about, incidentally -- the FCC is mandating digital, but not high-def, which is only part of digital), you will see this:
This means that the new digital channels are being assigned to 6 MHz channels within the existing analog TV spectrum. In other words, they are just shuffling things around within the same spectrum. Analog TV is 6 MHz for one channel, and so is digital. (Digital can have subchannels, but that is part of the protocol, not something the FCC worries about after they've assigned the 6 MHz bandwidth to a TV station.)
So, are they actually taking away any of the analog spectrum? Yes, they are taking part of it away -- a very small part. They are taking away channels 52-69. The FCC's FAQ says this:
Translation: they are going to try to eventually move every channel which is in the 52-69 range down into the 2-51 range. They are leaving 2-51 available for television, and they are trying to reclaim 52-69.
So, is this a good thing? Well, how many TV stations do you know of that are in the 52-69 range right now? There are very few. It's a part of the spectrum that isn't used for TV much right now as it is anyway. So in a way, the FCC is basically taking this opportunity to clean out this little-used part of the spectrum.
If you want to go into a little more detail, check out this Adobe PDF spectrum chart [doc.gov]. Look at the 300MHz-3GHz line, and look at the "TV BROADCASTING" section after the one that denotes channels 21-36. You'll see that it goes from 614Mhz to 698MHz, and since all TV channels are 6 MHz bandwidth, that means 84/6 = 14 channels. This means it goes with channels 37-50 (the next 14 channels after 21-36). And then look after that on the chart. You'll see that 698MHz through 806MHz is allocated for "BROADCAST" but also for "FIXED" and "MOBILE" purposes. So apparently it's not 100% dedicated to television right now. So the FCC is right to say that range (channels 50 and higher) is not part of the "core" spectrum.
Anyway, even if you don't agree that we should give up the part of 52-69 that is allocated to television (because apparently not all of it is), it's still important to note that the FCC is not auctioning off ALL of the analog TV spectrum. Actually, there are 68 channels total, and it would seem they are only auctioning off 18 of them, and part of those 18 channels aren't even allocated to TV in certain areas right now, so it's less than 18 channels. So, at worst, they are auctioning off 18/68 = 26.5% of the analog TV spectrum, and they are leaving exactly 50 broadcast television channels available.
2009? (Score:3, Informative)
Politicians make such decisions here with only a couple of months leadtime.
Some statistics showed that only about 70.000 families are still watching the analog TV network, it costs some 15 million euro per year to keep it running, government needs 15 million euro for some other purpose, so the network will be switched off next year.
(it is still unclear if this will happen all at once on Jan 1st, and if there will be subsidies to buy digital receiving equipment)
I know why the government wants to pay (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the quickest way to create a revolution in America is to cut people off from television and alchohol. Given that, I can see why the government is willing to pay to make sure nobody "leaves the matrix" in the process of converting over to digital television. They do not want people to be free from their opiates, their distractions. If they get free from them they might have time to think and then to get upset over what a crappy job the government is doing.
I think advertisers should pay for the switch to digital tv. Our economy is driven by consumerism and consumerism is inspired, mostly, by television commericals with coporations being the beneficiaries. If someone can't afford a digital TV setup than they can't see corporate America's propaganda and they will buy fewer things they do not need. Coproate America loses money.
Corporate American pays for television shows to be created so people will see their commercials and buy their products.
Why should the consumer either through their tax dollars or their net income pay to have someone else's advertisements to be beemed into their heads?
Let the people who make the profits pay the costs
Digital TV Sucks Ass - The Emperor Has No Clothes (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Bowl game interference (Score:2)
I'm curious what sort of reaction everybody's going to have when the ball drops in new york, hits the ground and every television in the country blue-screens or goes to fuzz. If people thought the year 2000 was spooky...