Subsidies for HDTV box conversions!

[Garrett]

First, read the link;
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051019/tv_nm/tv_subsidy_dc

Then, call your local congressman or woman, and tell them "YOU WANT THE $40 SUBSIDY!"

Otherwise, we'll all going to have to pay at least another $20 just to watch something that should be free.

 

[mikebatchelor]

Sure...Why not. We should at least get something since the goverment will be selling our public airwaves for billions of dollars...

> First, read the link;
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051019/tv_nm/tv_subsidy_dc
>
> Then, call your local congressman or woman, and tell them
> "YOU WANT THE $40 SUBSIDY!"
>
> Otherwise, we'll all going to have to pay at least another
> $20 just to watch something that should be free.
>

 

[Garrett]

> Sure...Why not. We should at least get something since the
> goverment will be selling our public airwaves for billions
> of dollars...

Yeah, nice of them to ask us first, huh?


>
> > First, read the link;
> > http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051019/tv_nm/tv_subsidy_dc
> >
> > Then, call your local congressman or woman, and tell them
> > "YOU WANT THE $40 SUBSIDY!"
> >
> > Otherwise, we'll all going to have to pay at least another
>
> > $20 just to watch something that should be free.
> >
>

 

[dhett]

> First, read the link;
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051019/tv_nm/tv_subsidy_dc
>
> Then, call your local congressman or woman, and tell them
> "YOU WANT THE $40 SUBSIDY!"
>
> Otherwise, we'll all going to have to pay at least another
> $20 just to watch something that should be free.
>

I think you're being a little naïve here. Government subsidies aren't free money. You and I pay for that. What's worse is, not only would a government subsidy not do anything to lower the price of the converter boxes, it would tack on administration costs, so we might end up paying more in taxes to cover the "subsidy" than we would just to go out and buy the stupid converter box in the first place.

 

[Markxxx]

> I think you're being a little naïve here. Government
> subsidies aren't free money. You and I pay for that.
> What's worse is, not only would a government subsidy not do
> anything to lower the price of the converter boxes, it would
> tack on administration costs, so we might end up paying more
> in taxes to cover the "subsidy" than we would just to go out
> and buy the stupid converter box in the first place.
>
Suposedly the subsidies would come from the sale of the frequencies vacated. So "in theory" at least, the public wouldn't pay for it. <P ID="signature">______________
Once I figured out the meaning of life....Then I forgot to write it down.</P>

 

[Tom_Desmond]

> I think you're being a little naïve here. Government
> subsidies aren't free money. You and I pay for that.
> What's worse is, not only would a government subsidy not do
> anything to lower the price of the converter boxes, it would
> tack on administration costs, so we might end up paying more
> in taxes to cover the "subsidy" than we would just to go out
> and buy the stupid converter box in the first place.

As already noted, the money is supposed to be coming from the sale of the spectrum being freed up. In addition, the *need* for the converter boxes would not exist were it not for the government's desire to auction off that spectrum in the near future. Otherwise, the replacement cycle as consumers upgrade their televisions would take care of the problem, and the analog transmitters would be shut off when no one was watching anymore.

 

[dhett]

> As already noted, the money is supposed to be coming from
> the sale of the spectrum being freed up. In addition, the
> *need* for the converter boxes would not exist were it not
> for the government's desire to auction off that spectrum in
> the near future. Otherwise, the replacement cycle as
> consumers upgrade their televisions would take care of the
> problem, and the analog transmitters would be shut off when
> no one was watching anymore.
>

Your point about the artificial "need" for converter boxes is well taken, but the subsidy is $3B, or roughly 30% of the expected income from the sale of spectrum, and over twice the $1.25B scheduled to go to first responders. Maybe it's just that I don't trust Ted "Bridge to Nowhere" Stevens with my money.

 

[Garrett]

> > As already noted, the money is supposed to be coming from
> > the sale of the spectrum being freed up. In addition, the
>
> > *need* for the converter boxes would not exist were it not
>
> > for the government's desire to auction off that spectrum
> in
> > the near future. Otherwise, the replacement cycle as
> > consumers upgrade their televisions would take care of the
>
> > problem, and the analog transmitters would be shut off
> when
> > no one was watching anymore.
> >
>
> Your point about the artificial "need" for converter boxes
> is well taken, but the subsidy is $3B, or roughly 30% of the
> expected income from the sale of spectrum, and over twice
> the $1.25B scheduled to go to first responders. Maybe it's
> just that I don't trust Ted "Bridge to Nowhere" Stevens with
> my money.
>

I don't know Ted Stevens all that well, but please, lets keep politics out of this?

 

[dhett]

> > the $1.25B scheduled to go to first responders. Maybe
> it's
> > just that I don't trust Ted "Bridge to Nowhere" Stevens
> with
> > my money.
> >
>
> I don't know Ted Stevens all that well, but please, lets
> keep politics out of this?
>

Wasn't meant to be a political statement. In fact, I'm of the same political party as Stevens. I think that a $3B subsidy that covers televisions is a bad idea, that's all. TV isn't a necessity and it shouldn't be subsidized by the government.

 

[Tom_Desmond]

> Your point about the artificial "need" for converter boxes
> is well taken, but the subsidy is $3B, or roughly 30% of the
> expected income from the sale of spectrum, and over twice
> the $1.25B scheduled to go to first responders.

The ideal way of dealing with the transition would have been for the digital tuner mandate to have kicked in a couple years earlier than it looks like it actually will -- right now, the mandate looks to be fully phased in after December 31, 2006, just over two years prior to the proposed analog shut-off.

But even with just two years, I think that the need for the converter boxes may end up being substantially less than anticipated. A fair number of those sets will get replaced as small, inexpensive DTV-compatible models become available. Others will just get relegated to other uses, such as playing back DVDs or videotapes.

Speaking of which: another side effect of the transition will be the obsolence of VCRs and DVD recorders that are being used to record off-air broadcasts.