Slashdot Mirror
Congress Pays You $3 Billion to Keep Watching TV
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."
I know this won't be popular with our crowd, but really it isnt a bad decision. From the article: "The subsidy program would be paid for by money raised from the auction of the analog spectrum the broadcasters are vacating.". So basically, they are making an expected 3 billion for making old TVs not work, so it only seems fair to use the money they took to make old tvs not work to make them work.
While I must say I really enjoy the editorialization in the summary (not), the submitter has no idea wtf he's talking about in regards to the financing of this project.
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.
From the article;
"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?
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Actually, from the proposals I've heard about, the money will come from the auctioning of the reclaimed spectrum for other uses, which should generate a LOT more money than $3B.
How about CONSUMERS pay for new TVs or converters themselves? They don't get cable free.
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.
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
The old TVs won't be useless if you get a digital tuner, which is one thing being considered for those that can't buy one for themselves. The tuner can automatically scale the picture to the TV in question. Unless the TV was total garbage anyway, the picture will likely be better even on an NTSC TV because digital TV doesn't have snow, static or ghosting that mar analog NTSC broadcasts. I've had a digital tuner for a while, it's pretty darn nice looking even for "just" 480i output, it'll look just like a DVD does on the same set.
Obviously, you've never actually seen an HF television transmitter.
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.
Welcome to America. You must be new here. EVERYTHING Congress (and the executive branch, as well) does is done as favors to big business. That's what pays for their campaigns and they don't forget it.
(Coming soon, the judicial branch too! Hooray cronyism!)
Yes, in case it's not obvious, I'm with the O.P. on this one.
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.
That's because, at present, most digital channels use UHF. Rabbit ears are really only good for getting VHF stations.
The logical reasoning behind this is that the government is taking away television by forbidding analog broadcasting. Therefore, to counter this, they will pay for it so people do not complain.
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.
UNIX: A computer user is defined as a programmer. WINDOWS: A computer user is defined as a consumer.
The article summary says:
This is simply not the case. If you read the FCC's FAQ 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. 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.
Wrong. See http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/ DOC-225221A1.pdf.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
NBC broadcast football in HDTV in 1998. That was SEVEN years ago. NFL broadcasting in HDTV on one of the big three networks is certainly not something hidden and secret that only a geek would know about.
The government started discussing HDTV standards in 1999.
DirecTV was doing HDTV in 2000.
In about 2000, the plan was to go to HDTV by 2005. In 2003, it was mandated that it would be 2007. Pretty much all of the things I mention can be found on Slashdot in the archives, which means they were published and discussed elsewhere. In fact, I first learned about the plan for ditching analog in 2005 - in 2000... ON TELEVISION. Enough so that I was aware of it when I went to buy my new TV in 2000. And I'm not any sort of a videophile or anything. Just an average joe who has read a news paper or new. This isn't obscure stuff. You almost have to intentionally avoid news about HDTV in the last six years to not know it was coming.
Analog TV will be phased out in 2006 here in the Netherlands...
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)
It's called a democracy
It's called a republic, not a democracy. Use your mastery of Webster's to illumine yourself on the difference. Or read the Constitution, if your school never got around to teaching you about it.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
In 1948, it was reallocated for users of mobile radio.
You know, I remember the day when I could get a clear picture from my tv. No snow, good sound and no worries. Now it's nearly impossible to watch it because of the jagged cubist style picture quality, the picture freezes as the digital signal buffers or whatever the hell it does, the sound doing the same thing. It is impossible to watch and enjoy a concert on TV now with the annoying sound dropping out but since it's digital it drops out clean! Wow, thank you so very much for that. The picture and sound quality sucks big time especially on those channels pronouncing how modern and up to date they are with their digital signals - good commercials for a crappy product. Oh, and if there is something on tv that I even enjoy a little bit I have to wait for the DVD to come out to actually enjoy it. The bottom third of the screen has the pop up advertisements for the next show, the shows coming in the next month or year and the damn ads move and explode and are just as annoying as hell. Yes indeed, I wish the government would have just stayed with the original date for the 'switch over' so the authors of this crap would be closer to the blowback and outrage that will surely come to them.
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
A Republic is a type of Democracy. All Republics are Democracies, but not all Democracies are Republics. Go back to school and pay attention this time.
It's a Republican government right now, remember? They don't care about the environment.
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.