Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo
- - - - -

A waste of taxpayer money


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
7 replies to this topic

#1 OFFLINE   News Junky

News Junky

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 509 posts
Joined: Mar 16, 2005

Posted 24 October 2005 - 06:12 AM

C&P from: http://money.cnn.com...igital_tv.reut/


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens said Wednesday he plans to propose a $3 billion subsidy program to ensure older television sets still work when the transition to better quality, digital broadcasts is completed.

Stevens, an Alaska Republican, said the estimated cost of a box to convert the new digital signals back to analog so existing television sets continue to work is $50 each and he proposed the government subsidize $40 of that amount.

"We plan to provide a set-top box...to everyone who has a TV that needs a box," Stevens said at a luncheon sponsored by the Free Enterprise Fund. "It may be we have to set a limit."

Stevens has proposed legislation requiring television broadcasters to end analog broadcasts and only air digital by April 7, 2009. His committee plans to vote on setting the deadline and the subsidy amount Thursday afternoon.

However, Republican Sen. John Sununu of New Hampshire may propose an amendment paring the subsidy fund to $1 billion, according to a list of expected amendments obtained by Reuters.

Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican, also had planned an amendment to cap the program to $500 million but now may not do so, according to a source close to the issue.

The money for the subsidy would come from selling some of the old analog airwaves at auction for commercial wireless services. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated a sale could raise $10 billion if the airwaves were made available in 2009.

There are approximately 21 million homes in the United States that rely solely on broadcast television, while most households subscribe to cable or satellite services.

The National Association of Broadcasters, which represents most television stations, has estimated that there are about 73 million television sets in homes in the United States that are not hooked up to cable or satellite service and rely solely on broadcast.


...Ads Help To Support This SIte...

#2 OFFLINE   HIPAR

HIPAR

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 749 posts
Joined: May 14, 2005

Posted 24 October 2005 - 09:53 AM

I don't know how all of you 'out there' are thinking but, myself, I'm sick and tired of a growing socialist movement that expects the Government to pay for every disruption in our lives. But I am not exactly 'poor and disadvantaged'.

Yes, buying set top boxes is a waste of taxpayer's money. Just how important is the DTV changeover? I couldn't care less if it never happens and I just bought a HDTV set!

If the transition is certain, lets set a hard date for it to occur on Dec 31, 2014 and enforce the mandate for all TVs sold to include ATSC tuners during 2007. That way, we have about 8 years for all of those NTSC sets to 'burn out' and be replaced by their owners leaving the taxpayer 'off the hook'.

--- CHAS

#3 OFFLINE   SimpleSimon

SimpleSimon

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 5,468 posts
Joined: Jan 15, 2004

Posted 28 October 2005 - 04:03 PM

The National Association of Broadcasters, which represents most television stations, has estimated that there are about 73 million television sets in homes in the United States that are not hooked up to cable or satellite service and rely solely on broadcast.

That is a WILDLY inflated figure intended to justify delaying the conversion for as long as possible. :mad:
"I agreed with Bogy thrice in 5353 posts. That means he's wrong 99.94% of the time."
----------
DishDVR 921, B: 120B, F: F051, V: L211HECD-N@04-Dec-07, L212@05-Mar-01, L213@Apr-01, L215@Jun-29, L216@Jul-23, L218@Jul-28, L219@Aug-11, L270@Sep-14, L272@Oct-28, L273@Dec-08, L274@Mar-08, L275@Mar-23, L276HECD-N@06-Mar-31.
DP-Twin=110/119, DP Single=148, into a DP34, DP Dual=61.5, into DP21s to add 61.5

#4 OFFLINE   FTA Michael

FTA Michael

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,473 posts
Joined: Jul 21, 2002

Posted 28 October 2005 - 04:55 PM

I don't think it's widely inflated, I just think it's misinterpreted. Just in one household (mine), counting the TV cards in my computers, I have at least four TV sets that "rely solely on broadcast". I don't watch 20 hours per year on those four sets combined, but they really exist.

A more meaningful number would be the households that rely solely on broadcast. I'd guess that would be about 15% of US households, and maybe half of those decline cable even though they can afford it.

For a working poor household, relying on local PBS to get the kids ready to read, I'd hate to be the guy to have to tell them that their TV is worthless without a $50 adapter. If there were a needs-based government program to deliver one adapter per household, would that be a waste of taxpayer money? It all depends on your priorities.
Yes, FTABlog is active again. Why do you ask?

#5 OFFLINE   SimpleSimon

SimpleSimon

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 5,468 posts
Joined: Jan 15, 2004

Posted 30 October 2005 - 12:24 AM

I don't think it's widely inflated, I just think it's misinterpreted. Just in one household (mine), counting the TV cards in my computers, I have at least four TV sets that "rely solely on broadcast". I don't watch 20 hours per year on those four sets combined, but they really exist.

Yes - I agree. If I had to answer the question literally, only 1 of the 4 in my house have a current DBS hookup. HOWEVER, one is a PC used for vidcap, one is a test set I use in the field, and the third is just unused.

The point is, the NAB would count that as 3, while a more realistic count is ZERO.

I feel this is a DELIBERATE misdirection by the NAB - just like much of the other stuff they do.

#6 OFFLINE   greatwhitenorth

greatwhitenorth

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 360 posts
Joined: Jul 18, 2005

Posted 30 October 2005 - 05:18 AM

I don't think it's widely inflated, I just think it's misinterpreted. Just in one household (mine), counting the TV cards in my computers, I have at least four TV sets that "rely solely on broadcast". I don't watch 20 hours per year on those four sets combined, but they really exist.

A more meaningful number would be the households that rely solely on broadcast. I'd guess that would be about 15% of US households, and maybe half of those decline cable even though they can afford it.

For a working poor household, relying on local PBS to get the kids ready to read, I'd hate to be the guy to have to tell them that their TV is worthless without a $50 adapter. If there were a needs-based government program to deliver one adapter per household, would that be a waste of taxpayer money? It all depends on your priorities.

I don't have a link here, but I did see a study that states that 85% of all households have pay-TV, either cable or DBS. The other 15% are broadcast only, and the study stated that these 15% will probably never pay for TV. Maybe we should ding the broadcast stations for the costs of the adapters (like the NAB would ever let that happen!).

#7 OFFLINE   kenglish

kenglish

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 972 posts
  • LocationSalt Lake City, Utah, USA
Joined: Oct 02, 2004

Posted 01 November 2005 - 09:42 AM

Whether you watch them several hours a day or one hour a year, they still won't work after the magic date.

#8 OFFLINE   FTA Michael

FTA Michael

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,473 posts
Joined: Jul 21, 2002

Posted 01 November 2005 - 08:13 PM

I agree completely, or at least mostly. (I plan to pop them open and try to solder some sort of RF adapter when they become doorstops.)

But the context of the discussion is whether the government (aka We The People) should subsidize or hand out adapters when the time comes. My implied point is that I don't think I have a right to an extra government handout just because I got a free portable B&W set with my office supplies order last year, and that counting the number of "rely solely on broadcast" sets doesn't illuminate the discussion.
Yes, FTABlog is active again. Why do you ask?




Protected By... spam firewall...And...