Sorting Through the Analog to Digital TV Mess

H_Fisher writes "CNN offers an article from Fortune magazine, giving a look at the problems surrounding the mandatory switch from analog to digital TV in the U.S., now slated for 2009. 'Managing this transition -- which will render about 70 million TV sets obsolete -- will be not be easy,' Marc Gunther writes. Among the problems: millions of American households without cable or satellite access will lose free access to news and weather along with the rest of their broadcast fare. Uncle Sam's solution? 'Yes, the very same federal government that is cutting back on college loans and food stamps will soon be issuing TV vouchers' - $1.5 billion to help U.S. households buy new digital TV equipment."

Comments

Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[daveschroeder]

We bitch about and make light of all the delays going digital, and then we bitch when the government propose to help disadvantaged groups to maintain access to broadcast television, for whatever it's worth.

Let's not forget:

To be sure, the transition will facilitate a lot of progress for both the tech industry and the public sector. Once TV stations switch to digital transmission, they will return to the government a big chunk of the radio spectrum they currently use to transmit their analog channels.

Some of that spectrum will go to first responders -- police, fire and public safety officials -- so they can better communicate with one another. Breakdowns in emergency communication slowed the response to the September 11 terrorist attacks and Hurricane Katrina. New spectrum should help.

The rest of the spectrum will be auctioned off to the highest bidders -- probably tech companies. The sale of this valuable, scarce real estate is expected to bring in about $10 billion, maybe more. That will help reduce the federal budget deficit.

Better yet, when the spectrum is sold off, the companies that buy it will use it to develop new technology and services. Cheap, ubiquitous wireless broadband access is one possibility. Mobile TV or music services are others.

Scheduled for 2008, the auction will be the biggest spectrum sale since a 1994-95 spectrum auction. That sale helped boost the mobile phone industry, boosting the number of cell phone subscribers in the U.S. from 24 million to 200 million. It also helped drive down the cost of wireless minutes from an average of 47 cents a minute to 9 cents a minute, according to analysis from financial services firm Stifel Nicolaus.

"With the new auction, we will finally become a broadband nation," says Blair Levin, a Washington analyst with Stifel Nicolaus. "Google, Yahoo!, Microsoft, Intel, Dell -- these companies will all benefit. The more broadband pipes you have, the more applications will come along, the more often you will upgrade your device."

Indeed, Microsoft, Intel, Dell, and Cisco all joined a Washington lobbying effort called the High Tech DTV Coalition to push for digital television. Congress has been debating the issue for a decade, ever since the 1996 telecom bill gave digital spectrum to broadcasters, with the expectation that they would eventually give their analog spectrum back.

Seems like $1.5B to smooth the transition is a good deal for all involved.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[_Sharp'r_]

You'd think on /. submitters would have some basic math skills.

"Yes, the very same federal government that is cutting back on college loans and food stamps will soon be issuing TV vouchers"

!"increasing as much as planned" != "cutting back"

Of course, it is a /. article, so I suppose we've come to expect at least one troll line in the article summary.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[daveschroeder]

Of course, it is a /. article, so I suppose we've come to expect at least one troll line in the article summary.

Yeah, I thought about pointing that out, too, but that quote was actually from the Fortune article itself. :-/ Take it up with the author, I guess...

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[voice_of_all_reason]

The rest of the spectrum will be auctioned off to the highest bidders -- probably tech companies. The sale of this valuable, scarce real estate is expected to bring in about $10 billion, maybe more. That will help reduce the federal budget deficit.

Wrong, because I guarantee that the above number is based on spectrum space now.

Spectrum space commands such a high price because it is limited right now. Open up the supply, with the same demand, and price goes down. This is economics 101.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Anonymous Coward]

"We bitch about and make light of all the delays going digital, and then we bitch when the government propose to help disadvantaged groups to maintain access to broadcast television, for whatever it's worth."

Speak for yourself.

Digital "television" is practically obsolete as soon as it appears. Who here doesn't recognize by now that generic networks (i.e. the Internet) are the present and future of communications?

Sure, digital cable networks have one advantage. They're faster than Internet broadcasting -- if you happen to be one of the centralized broadcasters. It's a one-to-many setup, with unequal control by design. It's subsidized directly and indirectly by tax funds, basically headed straight into the pockets of the corporate landlords.

We shouldn't be wasting money to prop up these behemoths. Forget them. Computer networks make them obsolete, and the short-term speed advantage of the cable networks is only due to the fact that they're working in a broadcast-optimized architecture.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[neomunk]

I'm really impressed that the appeal to Sept. 11th came in on the FIRST article. Slashdot should be proud to have the right wing spin machine view it with the importance that it receives.

Forget college, forget healthcare, we need radio bandwidth and tax cuts for the richest to help fight the terrorists.

Sickening.

80 years ago people were expected to read Shakespear in the 4th grade, now we (MAYBE) get into it by high school. We've been dumbed down folks, and if you don't think TV played a large part in that, well, you watch too much TV...

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[daveschroeder]

Spectrum space commands such a high price because it is limited right now. Open up the supply, with the same demand, and price goes down. This is economics 101.

Actually, the estimates on spectrum auction proceeds take this into account.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Anarke_Incarnate]

Of course they will pay for new TVs. Bread and Circuses....Bread and Circuses. Besides, how else do you oil a propaganda machine and ensure it reaches the masses? You need to be able to get them all your message.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[fimbulvetr]

Except that a few 1.5B here and a few 1.5B here lead to us raising the debt limit:

http://today.reuters.com/News/newsArticle.aspx?typ e=politicsNews&storyID=2005-12-29T225501Z_01_KNE98 2458_RTRUKOC_0_US-ECONOMY-DEBTLIMIT.xml

I don't know about you, but I'm not a big fan of that.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Austerity Empowers]

It's not actually that horrifying that they're subsidizing it. College money isn't going to help a good number of disadvantaged people, these may not have finished high school and may be barely literate, or any number of scenarios in which education is neither helpful nor possible. Having a working TV is very important, it's the only way to keep citizens informed of emergencies, government activities, etc. We take the state of the union address for granted, but it's important it is there, and gets out to people. Similarly hurricanes, tornados, terrorist attack info, etc. need to get out to everyone and the TV is a reliable way of doing it. You can count on a TV being almost everywhere (certainly anywhere I've ever lived, worked or went to school). It's like having roads or a standing army, the kind of thing that everyone benefits from.

Now I'd hope that the subsidies are going to people who really need it and not just every idiot out there.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Guppy06]

"We bitch about and make light of all the delays going digital,"

"We" do? Personally, I'm still complaining about needing to switch to begin with. Between the government-mandated switch, the push for the broadcast flag, and now these new pork vouchers, I find nothing to be happy about with the entire process.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[daveschroeder]

I'm really impressed that the appeal to Sept. 11th came in on the FIRST article. Slashdot should be proud to have the right wing spin machine view it with the importance that it receives.

Take it up with Fortune, not me. You did RTFA, didn't you? That's a direct quote from the submitted article.

Forget college, forget healthcare, we need radio bandwidth and tax cuts for the richest to help fight the terrorists.

If only there were an emoticon for rolling eyes.

Yeah, that's what it's all about.

Not to mention that there will be a NET GAIN from the bandwidth auction alone and innovation by tech companies who purchase said bandwidth.

Over a full third of taxpayers in this country pay no taxes at all. The top 1% of taxpayers - and these aren't all or even mostly people who are fabulously wealthy; these include people who make just over $250,000/year in household income - as of 2004, pay over 40% of the tax. The top 5% now pay over 60% of the tax. The entire bottom 50% now pay less than 3% of the tax burden, and most of them are at the upper part of the 50%. The bottom 35% pay nothing.

So, I ask you: how is this not fair? Or should the entire tax burden be paid by the top, say, 5%? The poor - the bottom, say, 20%, will still be poor and struggling. Since, as you say, the more fortunate have more than enough money, perhaps we could take some of theirs, and simply give it to the poor? [1999 ref]

80 years ago people were expected to read Shakespear in the 4th grade, now we (MAYBE) get into it by high school. We've been dumbed down folks, and if you don't think TV played a large part in that, well, you watch too much TV...

I think this attitude is hilarious coming from slashdot. I have seen it almost too many times to count. From the "technology isn't bad, it's just technology" crowd, and indictment of a communication technology. And yes, one-way is still communication. Otherwise, we should trash newspapers and "Shakespear" (sic - hmm, maybe you're right about the dumbing down...), too.

TV isn't a villain here any more than any other technology. The lack of personal responsibility, however, is. Of course, your message doesn't seem to hold personal responsibility in very high regard, so your assessment isn't surprising.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[honestmonkey]

The sale of this valuable, scarce real estate is expected to bring in about $10 billion, maybe more. That will help reduce the federal budget deficit.

The only problem here is that it won't reduce the deficit at all. Congress will see this as $10 billion in free money (assuming they even get that amount). "Extra money? Why, we should reduce our debt!" Never happen.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[daveschroeder]

LOL, I love slashdot. :-)

If we converted to digital and left the poorest of our nation out in the cold, we'd devolve into some discussion about how the evil government was depriving the weakest among us from access to a free press, possibly even with a few stats peppered in about how TV is even more important for them because of illiteracy rates, and so on, and maybe some good socialism arguments to boot.

But when we DO help them, it's, of course, a conspiracy to spread propaganda and keep everyone under their thumbs! (After all, network television is nothing more than a propaganda mouthpiece for the government!)

You guys are the best. ;-)

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[operagost]

Right wing bias on Slashdot? Now I've seen everything.

Wait-- no I haven't. You're just a paranoid leftist dope. That the first responders had problems communicating due to bandwidth limitations is a fact. The vouchers have nothing at all to do with supposed "cuts" in college loans-- that is a troll from the cited article which is patently false as pointed out in an earlier post. Frankly, I prefer spending money on intelligence so that we can prevent attacks instead of picking up the pieces, but improving our emergency services is always a good investment.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the government was about to outlaw digital-to-analog conversion?

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Dr. Evil]

If only we were more educated. Then disasters like this wouldn't happen.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Anonymous Coward]

In public finance circles, a cut in the rate of growth of a program is always described as a cut in the program itself. Government really is a different world to the one most of us live in.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Anonymous Coward]

80 years ago people read Shakespeare in the 4th grade because there was nothing much else of importance to learn.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[InsaneProcessor]

You only THINK that the funds raised will be payed down on the deficit. Try again. More money comming into the federal government will mean that they can spend more and invade our personal lives even more!

Digital TV isn't that great. I am a tech junkie and I don't have it. I tried it and so no bang for the buck. We don't need it. It is just a nice thing to have and should co-exist with the current system if the market wants it, it can replace the current system. Only if the market drives it that way. Period.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[crisco96]

Forget college, forget healthcare,

Finally a good idea. I would also like to add social security, medicare, and pretty much any other social service to the list.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[daveschroeder]

Aside from the utter (and predictable) idiocy of your comment, what would happen, then, if we made the top 5% pay ALL of the tax burden? Aside from being horribly unfair to any thinking person, the bottom, say, 20% of our country will still be poor. Of course, they already pay NO TAX, so nothing changes for them. (And, for the sake of argument, let's say thy magically don't pay sales tax, either.) But they're still poor.

Let me guess: most of the money that the top 5% have - keeping in mind that these are households that only have to make about $120,000/year to be in this "top 5%" - has been "milked out" of other people, right?

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Maxo-Texas]

'Lowering Increase Inflation' == "Cutting back"

If you doubt that consider:
I went to college for at most $183 a semester (12 to 14 hour load).
Same college only 13 years later now charges $1,780 for the same load.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Tibor the Hun]

10 billion will help reduce the budget deficit of 8.1 trillion? Why do they even mention that as one of the reasons?
Only 8000 sales like this, and we won't even have a deficit!

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[VAXcat]

Bullshit. Inadequate/complete lack of frequency coordination and plans for inter-agency communication != lack of bandwidth.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[LlamaDragon]

Funny how quick people are to point out that funds are still increasing while ignoring the fact that the smaller-than-planned increases will still force cutbacks in education programs.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[omeomi]

80 years ago people were expected to read Shakespear in the 4th grade, now we (MAYBE) get into it by high school. heck, the first Shakespeare I read was in college...

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[cwgmpls]

Let's not play games with semantics. Cutting back an increase certainly is cutting back. It is taking action to reduce something to less than what would have occured without the action. There are many ways to cut back. You can cut back a number or you can cut back the rate of increase in a number -- they are both cut backs. The author wasn't specific about what type of cut back is occuring, but a cut back in a rate of increase is still a cut back.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[tompaulco]

80 years ago people were expected to read Shakespear in the 4th grade, now we (MAYBE) get into it by high school. We've been dumbed down folks, and if you don't think TV played a large part in that, well, you watch too much TV...
Wow, more than half the people couldn't read or write and the few that could were expected to read Shakespeare by 4th grade. Of course, now our illiteracy rate is closer to 10%, but they can't read Shakespeare until High School. I don't think that's such a bad tradeoff.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Reducer2001]

I agree. Let's also dump the police department, public libraries, the Interstate highway system, NASA, the military, FBI, CIA, and the fire department.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Dachannien]

The other 40% is money they've milked out of other people.

Actually, that's money they were paid in exchange for goods and services. Like milk.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[neomunk]

The post you QUOTED from the article forces me to take the issue up with you, not them.

And, to tell the truth, it really LOOKS like you're saying that the rich in this country have too much of a tax burden on them, and the poor aren't pulling their weight. This is the dumbest thing I've heard all year. (mind you, it IS early in the year) Breaking the backs, hearts, and minds of those that give the labor of thier life so that you can buy a yacht (and so they can afford to eat, and pay MOST of the bills, MOST of the time) isn't enough?

And about that last bit. I never said TECHNOLOGY makes us dumb, I truely believe that the internet (and schizo as it is) s helping to undue the dumbing down wrought upon us by TV. Oh, and correcting my spelling? BRILLIANT! You too-smart-for-the-rest-of-slashdot superior mind you.

Personal REsposibility he says, ahhh yes, social darwinism at it's greatest. Let's see, the people have to accept 2minimum wage jobs (or JUST above) in order to feed their families and pay the rent, while paying out 4/5ths of one of those checks a week to childcare in order to sqeeze that last 20% out of the second check to pay the bills. Not that many people in this country have a pension anymore, but if you do, when it gets taken by those who need to have a 10 million dollar party for their 13 y/o daughter, well, you just weren't resposible enough to have been born wealthy.

You don't want anything even CLOSE to personal resposibility to be a driving force, you just want a reason to tell the people whose lives you're marginalizing that it's their fault you have their money.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[deanj]

You cite a bad example, and comparing apples to oranges. The increases you saw in that tuition are due to the school raising their rates; they didn't go strictly by inflation. If you were spending that 13 years ago, you got a bargain. Twenty years ago (where I went to school) it was much more than that.

The original poster was correct. An increase in spending is an increase in spending. Not spending as much as someone wants to be spent is NOT a decrease in spending.... the amount of money being spent is still an increase.

It just sounds so much better to the people who don't pay attention, or worse, want to try and set the stage of an argument based on a lie.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[wuice]

Well, except that the "plan" is to increase it to keep pace with cost of living/inflation.. to not do so is to, in effect, cut the program. Those of you born with silver spoons in their mouths will never have to worry about it.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[MattHaffner]

So, I ask you: how is this not fair?

Well, since the same 1-5% also tend to represent the business owners who can't seem to figure out how to pay the bottom 50% a decent living wage; offer reasonably priced health-care for their employees; and guarantee a retirement plan for loyal workers that will not be cut off, no, I still find it "not fair". In the name of short-term profit, business has foisted all this onto the individual or society now in the last few decades. If we're going to operate that way, fine. But you can be damn-well sure that a bunch of us are going to expect the social net to expand, not shrink.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Hammer1234]

"Having a working TV is very important, it's the only way to keep citizens informed of emergencies, government activities, etc"

A radio would provide this also correct? Also a better alternative to a TV as I see it.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[jd142]

!"increasing as much as planned" != "cutting back"

Pretend the following:

Your job is to provide 1 apple to every student each day. It is 2005 and apples cost 50 cents. You have 200 students. The 2005 government budget has given you $100 dollars a day to do the job. You can do your job and have no problems. You serve 100% of the students.

The government forecasts that in 2006, apples will cost 60 cents and increases in enrollment will give you 220 students. Because it knows that these are just projections, the government projects a 2006 budget for you of $140 a day, 40% increase in budget, but you should be able to do your job with a little money to spare. You still serve 100% of the students.

When it comes time to actually pass the budget, the government gives you a budget of $125 a day budget, a 25% increase over this year's budget. However, government projections of prices and enrollments were on target. Apples now cost 60 cents and you have to provide apples for 220 students each day.

You can only purchase 208 applies, which means that 12 students are no longer covered.

Did your budget increase? Yes.
Did you cut back on the percentage of students you can serve and the services you offer? Yes.

Thus not increasing by as much as planned does equal cutting back.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[SilverspurG]

what would happen, then, if we made the top 5% pay ALL of the tax burden?

The companies that are set up, with themselves at the top making salaries which account for the majority portion of the granted funding, would no longer need to be incorporated as non-profit.

There was just a story on the east coast about a number of non-profits milking government money. One such company had a contract that amounted to all of $2 million, and the purpose was to help mentally challenged people find jobs, and the CEO was paying himself a nice fat $400k/year for his generosity in helping those poor people receive the money the government had allocated for them. That's not counting his two VPs and any executive board they may have had. "Grab ahold everyone. This pork barrel is going for a roll."

That's not the exception. That's the rule. It's a pyramid scheme.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[neomunk]

Don't just come here assuming you know what you're talking about and make up some math to go along with it. Look up the literacy rate. It's gone up about 3 percent since the 1920s all the while lowering the bar of what 'literacy' means.

You're not smarter than your grandparents just because you read 'Wired', I promise.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, homey. Calm down. Don't blow a fucking gasket if someone says something contrary to your post. It doesn't make you king of the world if no one contradicts you on a /. forum.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Anonymous Coward]

Or newspaper (for the literate) or the promised widely accessible broadband services...

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[deanj]

You're right. And as we've seen in press reports since then, if the Governer hadn't been worrying about her "image" so much, and taken responsibility to get things going instead of pushing off help so she could "think about it", the help would have been brought in much more quickly.

Don't even get me started about the levy system down there. Having seperate governing bodies for EACH levy is pretty freakin' stupid.

Finally, take a look at Florida. They've had EIGHT hurricanes hit in the last two years, including Katarina. Back when the big one hit down there (Andrew), they had it together enough to have FEMA in there within 5 days under Clinton. Bush had 'em in there for Katarina in three days. Florida did great in both cases, because they stepped up. That was through both Democrat and Republican state administrations.

The state of Lousiana failed, and it was left to the feds to pick up the pieces.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm. Do I believe the guy who references "looking it up" even though he makes plenty of unsupported assertions himself, or do I believe the other blowhard who asserted a bunch of unsupported facts? Tough decisions. I mean the guy who thinks it's getting worse even threw in an ad hominem attack against Wired readers. But still, I think it's down to whether I believe the guy who was just making stuff up or the guy who was just making stuff up. Oh, I wish they'd taught me to think when they taught me to read Shakespeare in the 4th grade. That would really come in handy right now.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[drinkypoo]

Over a full third of taxpayers in this country pay no taxes at all. The top 1% of taxpayers - and these aren't all or even mostly people who are fabulously wealthy; these include people who make just over $250,000/year in household income - as of 2004, pay over 40% of the tax. The top 5% now pay over 60% of the tax. The entire bottom 50% now pay less than 3% of the tax burden, and most of them are at the upper part of the 50%. The bottom 35% pay nothing.

So, I ask you: how is this not fair?

1. The poor spend a higher percentage of their taxable income on necessities. You've got to have clothes to go out in public (by legal decree) and you've got to buy those clothes somehow. Many places in this country, you really have to own a car; there is little or no public transportation (usually limited to taxis) and miles to anything, including health care.
2. The poor pay more taxes, per dollar, than the rich in many cases. The top ten (or so) taxpayers typically pay taxes on less than 50% of their income due to creative use of writeoffs and other tax shelters.
3. The "cream" of financial society gets where it is based on deceit, murder, and the poisoning of the earth. By definition anything involving a lot of capital is shitting on someone and/or something. We utilize technology not to improve quality of life per unit of energy consumed, but to maximize ROI. Companies are beholden only to shareholders, and not the people of the world, or even their community. Our laws about corporatism, which lead to such financial disparity, are destroying our planet.

I can come up with more, but the current system is destroying all that we hold dear and puts an undue burden on those who make enough money to pay taxes. Sorry if you don't agree. If the top people are making 90% of the money, they should pay 90% of the taxes! This isn't happening. Why not? THAT is unfair.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[capnchicken]

Um... 12 X 183 = 2196 2196 1780 He didn't see a tuition increase, it was a decrease.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[MoneyT]

So why tax the innocent? Why not do something like, oh I don't know, put a maximum salary cap for employees in a NPO if they want government money?

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[drinkypoo]

Don't even get me started about the levy system down there. Having seperate governing bodies for EACH levy is pretty freakin' stupid.

Trusting that stupid levy system instead of rebuilding coastal wetlands that would actually make a difference is pretty freakin' stupid. The cost of rebuilding after Katrina is many times what it would have cost to institute the [itself rather expensive] plan to rebuild the coast down there. Oh well!

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[networkBoy]

I'm afraid you missed the point then.
These people are leaches on the system. It has nothing to do with who's being taxed. As the GP said, the top %5 pay the majority of the tax dollars already, both in total $$ and % of income. That the type of people you mentioned exist is a sad fact of human nature and the kama system hopefully will get them, but for each one of them there is a John Chambers (CEO, cisco) who lowered his pay (to $1.00 IIRC) to help the company save money and to up morale for his employees, there is a Craig Barret, who durring the downturn took a 75% pay hit because that is what was fair, and there are others just like them. These guys (and those like them) pay 40% of the federal government bankroll and are GoodPeople(tm).

[/rant]
-nB

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[capnchicken]

Um...

12 X 183 = 2196

2196 > 1780

He didn't see a tuition increase, it was a decrease.

Darn... HTML... such in' in such ....preview button.... grumble grumble

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[drinkypoo]

These people managed to get their hands on analog TVs somehow. In most cases, they are NEW TVs. I have lost track of the number of poor-ass people I've seen carting a new big-screen TV into their house. Frequently, it gets dropped off by Rent-a-Center and the payments run so long it puts their children in debt when they reach their majority. (Okay, I kid, I kid.) There is no fucking need for digital television vouchers.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[networkBoy]

link to $1.00 paycut. Turns out the chairman of the board did the same.
http://news.com.com/2100-1033-256405.html
-nB

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[drinkypoo]

You're actually arguing that it's better for a bunch of people to have the idiot box in their room chirping out government lies and ads for them to buy shit they don't need anyway than it is to send someone to college, so they can actually improve their life, and maybe bring that message back home? You work in advertising, right?

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[jnhtx]

The entire bottom 50% now pay less than 3% of the tax burden, and most of them are at the upper part of the 50%. The bottom 35% pay nothing.

That's not correct. The bottom 35% have a negative tax rate.

Not only do they pay no income tax, they receive "refunds" of several thousand dollars in the form of earned income credit payments.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[myth24601]

Actually, if the free apples program costs $100/day then you would probibly be budgeted $500/day and would have to do the usual orgy of aquisition at the end of the year so that you can say you don't have enought money to do the job. You will probibly have at least twice as many employees working for you then you need too since in government, your status is judged by how many people you have.

Lets not even get into how you will frequently run out of apples while waiting for multiple competitive bids from apple suppliers. Then you must make sure that the apple supply contracts are handed to vendors in the proper legislative districts so you will have the votes you need.

special consideration to 'disadvantaged' apple suppliers

Invironmental impact studies

Gotta make sure you pay the fairtrade apple rate

and so on...

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[MoneyT]

You know, health care et al, might actualy be affordable if the government didn't take so much out of every god damn paycheck. When I was making $8 / hour, a full 17% of my pay check was taken out and sent to uncle sam. That doesn't even count the money my employer had to pay out in taxes (remember for a lot of the taxes like social security, they have to pay equal match for every employee). You don't even want to know what my taxes looked like earning $30 / hour. Or, if you want to look at it another way, when I was making $8 / hour, the ammount of money they took in taxes each month would have paid for good PRIVATE healthcare, cable TV / internet AND a third of my monthly rent. And that's on top of living decent on the regular pay. And the more succesful I am, the more they take from me. And you wonder why I'm in no hurry to give my money away.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[CokeBear]

Why are people getting free stuff with my tax dollars??

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[aesiamun]

That's not what he is saying...

12 semesters x 183 a semester = 2196

12 semesters x 1780 a semester = 21360

He's saying that it's 1780 for the same course load per semester...not total.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[SilverspurG]

who lowered his pay (to $1.00 IIRC) to help the company save money

Very noble gesture coming from a guy who already has enough money to live on for decades. Quite impressive. He'll probably get an honorable dinner, at company expense, just to award his good natured contribution to the company. The award may even include some special stock options that nobody else qualifies for.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[_anomaly_]

Try re-reading GP post...

I went to college for at most $183 a semester (12 to 14 hour load).

The $183 they mentioned was for a full-time (reason for mentioning 12-14 hour load) semester, total.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Yartrebo]

First off, you're probably just counting income tax. All poor people, even unemployed, pay sales tax. Almost all employed poor people pay social security taxes and a few other non-refundable taxes. Fees tend to be paid disproportionately by poor people because they're an equal dollar tax on everyone who uses the facility or lives in the state.

Second, the upper 1% control far more than 1% of the wealth or income. The only way to get the upper 1% to control only 1% of income is to have perfect equality. In practice, the number is more like the top 1% controlling around 50% of the wealth. Even under a flat tax, their fair tax burden would be around 50% of total taxes paid. Anything less is a regressive tax regime.

What happens is that the poor pay fairly high rates (probably around 20%-30% of income) because they are still responsible for the social security tax (11% or so once you include the employer portion), sales tax, tolls, and sin taxes (gasoline, cigarettes, alcohol). The middle class pay a similar amount, with a higher nominal rate being offset by fat mortgage deductions, better tax preparers, and far less sin taxes and tolls. Even without breaking any laws, rich people will pay less taxes because they essentially pay no sales, tolls, or sin taxes and they often shop around for lower tax countries to park their money. Capital is also favorably treated, and most of their income comes from capital.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[bdowne01]

I'm really impressed that the appeal to Sept. 11th came in on the FIRST article. Slashdot should be proud to have the right wing spin machine view it with the importance that it receives. Forget college, forget healthcare, we need radio bandwidth and tax cuts for the richest to help fight the terrorists.

Not knowing your exact polictial stance, I'll ask what I usually ask my left-leaning friends when I hear stuff like this:

Complaining aside, in detail, how would you solve the problem?

Generally what I get back is more complaining, or some generalized theoretical spiel that has no consideration of reality. Please try to avoid that.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[SilverspurG]

The myth is that, at the end of the day, you get just as much free stuff with their tax dollars. It doesn't really work out that way but that's the argument. One side claims "will of the people" and the other side claims "pyramid scheme". Look at the distribution of wealth and tell me which is more likely to fit the model.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[wx327]

If the top people are making 90% of the money, they should pay 90% of the taxes! This isn't happening. Why not? THAT is unfair.

That math would point to a flat tax rate, vs the progressive rates we have in place. Under the current system, if you are making 90% of all the income in the US, you are paying more than 90% of the total taxes collected.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[ScentCone]

you just want a reason to tell the people whose lives you're marginalizing that it's their fault you have their money.

Let's see. Say you have a married couple - perhaps two people who both work as professionals in IT or some other area that they had to go to school to tackle. Between them, they make $250k a year before taxes, working probably 70-80 hours a week each at least. Unlike the low-income people you're talking about (who pay NO taxes), these two people have a very large chunk of their income harvested from them. Do you really think that those people (who, if they live in the sort of large urban area that can pay them that sort of living, probably also have a $2800 monthly mortgage on a 40-year-old two bedroom townhouse) are taking poor people's money? Do you really think that they "have" the money that an 18 year old flipping burgers should have instead? How much should a burger cost, in order to pay... what, $20,000 more?... to each burger-flipper? And do you really think that someone who designs hospital buildings, researches gene therapies, leads an engineering consulting team, or creates art desired by a large following should pay $10 for a $3 burger for that purpose? And would you, what, use the federal government to make sure that no other burger joint gets to offer a slightly cheaper burger lest we disrupt the artificial cash flow to the burger flipping strata of society? Or how about we tax the professionals a lot, and don't tax the burger flippers at all? Oh, right, we already do that. And how did we manage, despite painful blows to the country's economy (oil delivery shocks from Katrina, etc) have more economic growth and lower unemployment than, say, more socialist-minded places like France or Germany? By reducing the tax burden on the people that take their money and invest it the businesses that hire people and grow the economy.

Just admit it. You think that anyone with enough drive and capacity to produce enough income to live in an OK townhouse and own two cars that they have to drive an hour and half each day to the job where they work 70 hours should be forced to support other people who don't. But people like that aren't "born into money," they produce something of value and thus make the money. You act like there's some pie of fixed size out there, and that the minute one person earns a dollar more than he did the day before, some other person is thus going to have to go without that same dollar. What a load of decades-old socialist mumbo-jumbo crap. The economies that are framed around that perception fail miserably (and usually violently).

Among the many people I know who are arguably upper-middle-class (I'm not one of them), none of them were "born wealthy." But they, and people like them, pay the lion's share of the taxes in this country, including property taxes. The lower middle class pays very little, and the poor people pay no income taxes... in fact, they get tax credits along with a zillion other entitlements funded mostly by hardworking professionals and their families. That you have to resort to embarassingly ridiculous citations of essentially fictional $10M birthday parties (those just happen all the time, I know) in your attempt to make upper middle class people feel like they're not paying enough taxes is just an indication of how wrong you know you are.

The solution to poverty isn't penalizing productive people even more, it's in making a future of poverty unattractive enough to kids (and their parents) to make them want to actually bother to complete a solid high school and at least a real vocational education. Taking newly created income from someone who just earned it and handing it over to someone who didn't does not change the cultural ruts that keep some families explaining to their kids that sticking with entry level jobs is not a career strategy.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Guppy06]

"College money isn't going to help a good number of disadvantaged people, these may not have finished high school and may be barely literate"

Which is why aid should be provided by the government for tuition costs in their local community college so they can get their GED and so forth. Just because it's "college aid" doesn't mean it's all about four-year degrees or graduate work.

"Having a working TV is very important, it's the only way to keep citizens informed of emergencies, government activities, etc."

Even in the Twenty-First Century, there are still more radio listeners than television viewers. According to the CIA's World Factbook, there are about six times as many FM broadcasters as there are TV broadcasters, and that doesn't include AM. Even if you include (pay-for) cable, there are still far more information sources on radio than on television.

"We take the state of the union address for granted, but it's important it is there,"

No, it's not. When was the last time the State of the Union Address was anything but White Houe propoganda? Certainly not in my lifetime, at least. Recently, they seem to be more mandatory applause than actual speaking, and little if any has anything to do with the actual State of the Union and focuses instead on what the White House would like to do in the future.

If it is important, it is more useful to read the transcript so that you don't have to sit through all the applause. Lord knows the Union survived through a century and a half, a world war and a civil war with nothing more than a transcript, and a smaller percentage of citizens back then could read the damned thing.

"Similarly hurricanes, tornados, terrorist attack info, etc. need to get out to everyone and the TV is a reliable way of doing it."

No, it's not. Television works only when it is turned on, and if nothing else, people do actually turn the things off when they go to bed. This is why we have loud sirens to warn us about tornados and the like.

"You can count on a TV being almost everywhere (certainly anywhere I've ever lived, worked or went to school)."

TV isn't in your car. And 99 times out of 100, your employer isn't going to let you put a TV on your desk, but a radio is usually permitted. That's up to 9 waking hours that the average American is sans television.

"It's like having roads or a standing army, the kind of thing that everyone benefits from."

If I'm not watching it, how does it benefit me? Goods that I purchase are not carried on it (especially since it's paid for by advertisers, not viewers), and it will not protect me from invasion, domestic violence or guarantee I have a republican (small R) state government. Even when it is on, all I get is squawking about the latest Hollywood couple breaking up.

Television does not help anybody who does not own and view one, if it helps anybody at all. But even then, if it's so damned important, why is Congress messing with it by forcing us all to upgrade to begin with?

Better yet, instead of all this shady pork, why not pass a constitutional amendment guaranteeing each and every citizen a television?

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[bdowne01]

LOL, I read the actual statistic somewhere regarding exactly what you stated. Out of the populous considered below the poverty line, something like 30 or 40% had big screen tv's in thier homes. A higher percentage of that had more than one TV.

But, don't let the right wing spinsters fool you... these people are SUFFERING! Worse than anyone else in the entire world! Give me a f'n break already. Libs can't face the fact that bad news sells, and since the mainstream press is the primary source of their "facts", it must be true (to quote my lib brother "It has to be true if it's in a movie, right?").

Ironically, the media companies spreading the left's message are doing it for precisely what libs have such a problem of: Profit! Hypocrites.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Ced_Ex]

Well, if you put it that way, it's just comparing apples and oranges, uh wait... where are the oranges?

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Bad_Feeling]

Thanks but I dont think I would want to buy used airwaves. Networks have been transmitting on these frequencies for decades and the waves are probably completely worn out. Anyone who buys this "spectrum" is going to find out their communications equipment won't function on it at all short of massive transmitters. Yet the airwaves are still being sold for billions of dollars like they are new. Thanks, but no thanks, I'll stick to buying my frequencies brand new.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Austerity Empowers]

60 years ago I would have agreed with you. Radios aren't all that common anymore. Many people don't have one around, or at least don't use it if they do. I can't say when the last time I listened to my car radio was, perhaps if you commute in a large city.

Newspapers/broadband/etc. aren't live.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[birder]

Here is someone who has worked in government =p

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't have very good reading comprehension, do you? We'll get you a TV as well.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd just like to point out that the digital spectrum in question was something we gave away for free, even though we could have put a tax on it instead and generated billions of government-running dollars from big corporations. I find it hard to look at that and think there's a net gain here.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[linuxpaul]

80 years ago people were expected to read Shakespear in the 4th grade

Now, we can't even spell it.

Oh, sorry was that a troll?

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Thuktun]

The original poster was correct. An increase in spending is an increase in spending.

Just like a raise is a raise, even if it doesn't exceed the year-to-year consumer price index?

Employers must love you.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[keraneuology]

I am inflating a balloon with a pump that outputs 5 cm^3/second. I reduce the flow to 2 cm^2/second - I have cut back.

Same concept.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[drinkypoo]

You don't have very good reading comprehension, do you? We'll get you a TV as well.

Let's examine the comment I replied to, for a moment: "Having a working TV is very important, it's the only way to keep citizens informed of emergencies, government activities, etc. We take the state of the union address for granted, but it's important it is there, and gets out to people." So let's see. The television is useful because it allows the government to lie to people more efficiently? Fan-fucking-tastic.

If you're going to attempt to use my own lines against me, make sure they apply. Otherwise you just come off looking like the complete and utter moron you are.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Of course, now our illiteracy rate is closer to 10%, but they can't read Shakespeare until High School. I don't think that's such a bad tradeoff.

Exactly right. By high school, they should be able to get the dirty jokes.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Kevin Stevens]

80 years ago people were expected to read Shakespear in the 4th grade, now we (MAYBE) get into it by high school. We've been dumbed down folks, and if you don't think TV played a large part in that, well, you watch too much TV...


Thats kind of funny, my great grandmother, who would have been in 4th grade about 90 years ago, and has a high school education, has never read Shakespeare. My grandfather told me that most of the math and science I did in high school he did not touch until college. He was a smart guy that spent his adult life as an electrical/radar engineer at Grumman and went to Catholic school. SAT scores in this country are continually rising, and US colleges are saying that it is getting more and more competitive to get into their schools because the applicants are more qualified. More kids take college level (AP) courses in our high schools than ever.

IMHO, the only thing "dumbing down" the system are the students who used to be allowed to drop out or were sent to vocational schools that now have a huge amount of effort spent on them to get them up to speed and keep them in school. Similarly, there are thousands and thousands of students that are going to college that have no idea what they want to do there except for the fact that their parents told them to go. They end up getting a worthless degree, a drinking problem, and pissed off that they can't buy a bmw w/ the entry level salary they get as a paper pusher somewhere.

I kind of wonder what you have been reading, I suspect that its too many biased surverys or curmudgeon's pining for the "good old days" that were not as good as they seemed.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Hammer1234]

laugh, well said.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Anonymous Coward]

If the top 5% have ~60% of the total income, then you'd expect them to be paying 60 percent of income taxes. What's the problem here?

Payroll, local, and state taxes are still payed by the percentage of people who pay 'no' tax. When you take a look at the money going into a household and take out all the money going back to the government in taxes (not just income taxes) it's a pretty flat distrubition. Check it out.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[discojohnson]

I don't know for sure which way you meant that to come out, but I'm reading the negative impact which is that negative is unfair. I'm a military member and take home $34k gross ($10,6k of which is a housing allowance). I feed, clothe, transport and house (+entertain and pay for 45 hours of child care a week) myself and three children. I do not use my tax refund for anything more than paying down large required debts (car maintenance [mostly], road trips to gramma's, etc). What I'm saying is with my meager income I provide, but need a little bit more to maintain. Are you going to give me a few grand at the beginning of each year, or should I get a piece of the taxe monies to offset what Congress feels is fair for me to make?

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Surt]

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/Tfdb/TFTem plate.cfm?DocID=221&Topic2id=20&Topic3id=22

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=20 50

While the Top 20% may pay 60% of the tax, they hold 80% of the wealth.
The bottom 50% hold less than 5%.

So maybe the tax burden on the top 20% should be a little higher, as they are currently being taxed at a low rate in proportion to their benefit.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Anonymous Coward]

Taxes are actually at their lowest since WWII, and lower than many other countries in the world. God, Americans are pathetic. "The gubmint robs me! Whaaa!"

Health care, social security, etc. - these things *ARE* affordable, and more affordable as government programs (well, health care isn't yet, but it will be when we finally get single payer) than as private concerns. Especially since, when privatized, most people don't buy into them and end up being a strain on society as they get sick, can't work, become indigent, etc.

If you want your taxes cut, number one thing would be to lobby to cut military spending. That's the big red eyesore on the government's budget.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[AK Marc]

The top 1% of taxpayers - and these aren't all or even mostly people who are fabulously wealthy; these include people who make just over $250,000/year in household income - as of 2004, pay over 40% of the tax.

And the top 1% control about 40% of the wealth. So where is the problem? It lines up about right. Or do you think that the top 1% should pay 1% of the tax? That would be very regressive of you, and I'm wondering how you'd get 1% of the tax income from the bottom 1% to balance it out.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[SABME]

"there is a John Chambers (CEO, cisco) who lowered his pay (to $1.00 IIRC) to help the company save money and to up morale for his employees"

My heart bleeds for this real American hero.

He also cut my job and the jobs of ~8499 other people in June of 2001 (there were about 31,000 employees at Cisco at the time, as I recall, so it was a pretty significant cut). Yes we got a nice severance package, but the job market wasn't exactly healthy around that time. Many more people have been let go since, in dribs and drabs and with less publicity.

While I was still working there, I calculated that the total value of his annual compensation was more than 1000 times the value of mine. He could spend an amount equal to my annual salary with the same ease that I could take my wife out to dinner at a fancy restaurant.

Thanks, John!

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Anonymous Coward]

It's very telling that, in the course of decent discussion, the trolls come out more heavily holding your point of view.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[errxn]

C'mon, don't confuse him like that! He knows that capitalism is EVIL (TM), and if you don't believe it, just ask his Econ 101 professor. Or just about anyone else "cool" on campus, for that matter.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[AK Marc]

You're just a paranoid leftist dope. That the first responders had problems communicating due to bandwidth limitations is a fact.

That it is a fact doesn't mean it isn't a right-wing slant. When liberals bring up the fact that there were gross irregularities in the election, many of them centered in a state with the headquarters of a company whose CEO had the ability, and motive to materially affect the outcome of the election, are you saying that it isn't a liberal slant because the irregularities are based in fact?

improving our emergency services is always a good investment.

Yes, and doing so with "Think of the terrorists" as the battle cry puts a right-slant on it. Doing it with "think of the children" would be a left-slant on it. Whether it is justified, good, or worthwhile is a completely separate issue from whether some person or article discussing it has a right or left slant.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Anonymous Coward]

Ironically, the media companies spreading the left's message are doing it for precisely what libs have such a problem of: Profit! Hypocrites.

Wait, I'm confused. You mean the media is left-leaning because of profit, not because they're a bunch of hippie communist stoners? There's money to be made in being left of center? Damn, I better call up my CEO buddies, this is an election year!

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Anonymous Coward]

You're talking about college and healthcare when there are people in Africa starving every day? Nice right-wing spin there, bucko. How about we feed the starving people before we worry about sending our rich kids to college?

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[BronsCon]

From TFA:
Mobile TV or music services are others.

Because it's so damned hard to lug my walkman and handheld TV around with me.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[lgw]

You can't just "send someone to college". They have to want to go, have the background to be admitted, and so on.

Also, regardless your priorities, most people value TV more than education, and we have a representative government, so *of course* providing TV is a higher priority than providing education. That just means the system is working as expected.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Leucippus]

gee Dave, I'm a grad student at the very institution where you work, doing quantum physics, a job you could never do. Yet, I am in that bottom 20% despite my highly skilled job at which I work ~80 hours per week. Who exactly 'deserves' to make more money than me? Name one person. On top of that, my services are routinely cut, the state wants me to pay for my own healthcare, and my 'raises' neverkeep up with inflation. I would advise you to think before you start blathering about 'fairness'

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[drinkypoo]

Don't you mean failing as expected? One problem with government is that we elect people who want the job. Nothing is as dangerous as an opportunistic politician placed in power. Another is that once there, their first job is to get re-elected, not to actually improve things... Not that any of this is news.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[gwait]

Um.. 1.5 billion for new consumer electronics hardware (specifically televisions and/or set top boxes).
Does anyone think this cash will be spent on US manufacturing?

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[hazem]

It's the new interpretation of the 1st Ammendment. The founders actually intended media to be free as in beer, not free as in speech.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Anonymous Coward]

.....You're a student....Just because your graduate position implies that you're some type of genius (nice arrogance there)...what the fuck do you expect? Almost every single grad student at UW is in the same position....We're all in the same goddamn boat, buddy......are you in it for the money or something? That's pretty fucking dumb....

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Arandir]

I completely agree. The only people bitching about the "delay" are the government and a few people who bought their HDTVs early. The poor certainly aren't complaining about this issue. The market is supplying HDTV in proportion to the demand, so what's the problem?

The reason people are bitching about the this subsidy is that while everyone has a different idea on the proper role of government, very few people have "supplying entertainment to the poor" in their list of legitimate government functions.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[steve_bryan]

80 years ago people were expected to read Shakespear in the 4th grade, now we (MAYBE) get into it by high school. We've been dumbed down folks, and if you don't think TV played a large part in that, well, you watch too much TV...

That statement is a steaming pile of feces. Maybe you have dumbed down. I wouldn't claim any specific knowledge about you that would allow me to make such a judgment except that you have fallen for one of the oldest geezer illusions in the book. It goes back at least to the ancient Greeks. It may have been Plato quoting Socrates that current youth just aren't up to the standards of earlier generations. The same sort of observations has been repeated in probably every subsequent generation. By now we should barely be capable of walking upright and remembering how to breathe.

It shouldn't take very impressive insight to realize that societies sometime advance and sometimes retreat. My own anecdotal observation is that we are still advancing. Including Shakespeare in a fourth grade curriculum strikes me as remarkably poor judgment. On the other hand I have noted that the educational opportunities afforded my three children in public school in Edina, MN are distinctly better than what I had 30+ years ago (admittedly in a smaller community). I would also say that the availability of television, internet, and much more accessible foreign and domestic travel have been positive influences. They have all had the benefit of bilingual, immersive education (French and English) and significantly more advanced classes in high school. My oldest is taking all AP classes except for orchestra. I might add that his orchestra is incomparably larger and better than the group to which I had access.

I am simplifying my description to avoid unimportant caveats but I just get tired of hearing the same old geezer nonsense about how kids today just aren't as well brought up as we were. Nonsense. Oh, and by the way, TV is better today (and at the same time manages to reach lower lows, you have to be selective).

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[bnenning]

Almost all employed poor people pay social security taxes

Quite true. In fact, a large percentage of workers (it may even be a majority, not sure) pay more in SS than income taxes. We could acknowledge that Social Security is just a convoluted welfare program, abolish the payroll tax, means-test benefits and pay them out of general revenues. That would make the tax system much more progressive, but oddly liberals tend to howl in protest whenever anyone even thinks about touching SS.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[AK Marc]

Complaining aside, in detail, how would you solve the problem?

And you think it reasonable to demand of a single individual that they, in detail, solve something that a government with trillions spent on that or related programs, is unable to solve?

Have you thought that perhaps it isn't the goal, nor even the method that is in question, but the message given while addressing the problem? The same question, asked in a positive or negative manner, will get differeing responses. "Would you pay extra for the safety of a larger vehicle?" "Would you pay extra, including the increasing fuel prices, for a larger vehicle?" I'm guessing that you could ask the questions to differing groups and "prove" whatever you wanted. It is this slant and twisting that many people complain about. I'd love to be more safe, and spending government money on set top boxes is not something that I see as something that makes me safer. Claiming that DTV is about safety is a joke. This was started long before 9/11, so 9/11 can't be a reason. It may be a fabricated excuse used after it was in motion, but it wasn't a real consideration prior to the initial plans to move to DTV.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[lgw]

No, I mean working as expected. This is how representative governemnt works. You can complain about politicians not representing the people who elected them in general, but not in this case. People value TV more than education, so if money gets shifted from education to a TV subsidy, that's the system working as expected.

If you want a system that gives people what is good for them, instead of what they want, that's interesting, but it's not a representative government. It's also a bad plan, because a corrupt representative government (the normal state) is vastly more pleasant than a corrupt dictatorship (the normal state). Non-corrupt governments exist only on paper, and so aren't very interesting.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[AK Marc]

60 years ago I would have agreed with you.

How many radios are there in the US, and how many TVs?

Many people don't have one around, or at least don't use it if they do. I can't say when the last time I listened to my car radio was, perhaps if you commute in a large city.

But you *have* a car radio. What TV do you have that you can watch when the power is out? Compare that to listening to your car radio, which will last a long time in a power outage. It isn't about telling people about an emergency before it happens, for that radio and TV should be used in conjunction. But, for after an emergency, like Katrina, the radio stations are usually easier to get going and more people have radios, even if you have to wipe the dust off your car antenna.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[SEAL]

I agree and let me flush this out a tad more:

still responsible for the social security tax (11% or so once you include the employer portion)

That is actually around 15% (and you pay all of it if you are self-employed. Gotta love how the small businessman who is the "backbone" of America gets treated at tax time).

The middle class pay a similar amount, with a higher nominal rate being offset by fat mortgage deductions

The amount you can put on your itemized deductions from a mortgage is soon to decrease. A lot. Thank your Congressmen for screwing the middle class once again. Don't even get me started on the changes to bankruptcy law.

Even without breaking any laws, rich people will pay less taxes because they essentially pay no sales, tolls, or sin taxes and they often shop around for lower tax countries to park their money. Capital is also favorably treated, and most of their income comes from capital.

Capital gains tax itself is a large hit, BUT those gains don't count as wages and therefore you don't pay Social Security on them. Meaning more money for you to reinvest to expand even further. And yes I view Social Security as a tax because at the rate the current system is going, they'll make it so I have to be 90 before I can take any money out of it. Thanks for managing my retirement for me, USA.

About the only remaining tax-shelter for the middle class is a Roth IRA. If you're looking into one, though, I highly recommend converting an existing 401k or conventional IRA into a Roth so you can skirt the contribution limit and start out with more funds to play with.

- SEAL

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Anonymous Coward]

It was commented on NPR that the phrase "cuts" is used because the planned increase is intended to serve the same amount of people in light of inflation and other factors, and that they say "cutting back" because with an increase smaller than planned they will have to cut back on the number of people they will be assisting.

m!

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[InvalidError]

People do not lobby, entertainment and media organizations do. Most people would be better off without TV but that would hurt the studio's bottom line, taxes and other cashflows too much for the lobbyists' comfort so they push proposals to finance this stuff through. The studios do not want people to realize that there is something called "real life" once reality-TV is shoved aside.

Most governments make decisions for short-term money because the four years election cycles often ruins plans... incomplete projects that get undone by the next government can leave a sour-er taste either way.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[bdowne01]

And you think it reasonable to demand of a single individual that they, in detail, solve something that a government with trillions spent on that or related programs, is unable to solve?

Absolutely. Me, I'm a righty libertarian. I believe less is more when it comes to government. Period.

Big Government-More Taxes-Whining libs complaining about huge government making huge sloppy decisions is a wonderful example of the hypocrisy of libs to me. You in essence, answered your own question. NO, big government with huge programs and trillions of dollars won't sove a thing. I'm a free person, business owner, and citizen in the United States. I fully 100% without-a-doubt believe that this country allows anyone with drive and ambition acheive anything, anything, anything one could ever imagine. I know this because I've seen it happen. I believe it can happen. I believe in my country, not my government. That means I take responsibility for coming up with ideas instead of deferring it off. THAT is the difference. "I don't have the time" or "I can't do it" or "I don't want to" is simply not in my vocabulary. So yes, come up with a solution. Mine? Maybe dropping analog TV would give people the drive to actually save money so they can afford digital ones. There's three freaking years to do it. No government tax money needed for that. Wait, this is liberal America, we can't ask people to take responsiblity for their actions. Sorry about that, I forgot.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Austerity Empowers]

Which is why aid should be provided by the government for tuition costs in their local community college so they can get their GED and so forth. Just because it's "college aid" doesn't mean it's all about four-year degrees or graduate work.

That aid continues to be available. The problem in every situation I've seen it applied is that people are either unaware of what is offered, or more commonly unable to use it. The most common scenario is people needing to work and care for families tend to not have time for a GED. It does not make sense to grow this particular funding. I don't plan to argue about welfare or social security, especially on slashdot. Smarter and more informed people argue about it every day and still can't agree, we won't here either.

Even in the Twenty-First Century, there are still more radio listeners than television viewers. According to the CIA's World Factbook, there are about six times as many FM broadcasters as there are TV broadcasters, and that doesn't include AM. Even if you include (pay-for) cable, there are still far more information sources on radio than on television.

That's not a very helpful fact. Radios aren't in many houses, not everyone owns a car (esp. in cities) but you can always count on a TV being around. You don't have to watch the damned thing 24/7 for it to be a vital tool. Obsolete TVs and you can't rely on that unless they can be replaced. For many that will be difficult.

TV isn't in your car. And 99 times out of 100, your employer isn't going to let you put a TV on your desk, but a radio is usually permitted. That's up to 9 waking hours that the average American is sans television.

Not everyone has a car (especially in cities, especially if they are financially struggling), and we're not talking about replacing the radio. The radio is critical for many emergencies that involve lost power. Nor is it relevant what people's employers do as employers tend to buy the TV. This is about home purchases. I don't know many families who sit around the radio at night anymore.

No, it's not. Television works only when it is turned on, and if nothing else, people do actually turn the things off when they go to bed. This is why we have loud sirens to warn us about tornados and the like.

People tend to keep them on an awful lot. Personally I don't use it much, but when I want to know what's going on locally I turn it on. More so when events are occuring that I have somehow grasped as important, transit strike information, government scandal, weather alerts, local shootings, whatever. I'm sure this transcends class boundaries, it's part of living in society. I'd LOVE to shut out the world, if I knew it would stay out. A very small fraction of required education is available in any kind of schools, most of it is ongoing.

Television does not help anybody who does not own and view one, if it helps anybody at all. But even then, if it's so damned important, why is Congress messing with it by forcing us all to upgrade to begin with?

For a variety of reasons I know a great deal of people who are living below the poverty line. Not homeless people, I don't know much about that group, but just poor. I don't know a single one without a TV. Not one. I know many without phones, many without cars, some who lose heat/hot water every so often, but not one without a TV. I can't say the same for any other communications device.

Better yet, instead of all this shady pork, why not pass a constitutional amendment guaranteeing each and every citizen a television?

Because that would cost a lot more, a one time $1.5B charge is not enough for that. Now you're talking about a program.

My only point is that this is not as unreasonable as you try to make it out. If I were god of all things, I'd probably run this ship a little different too. But slashdot is first and foremost about technology, and TV, whether we like it or not, has a pretty significant impact on a huge numb

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Arandir]

You know, if we had a true flat tax, it would all work out. Do the math. A 10% tax on highest 80% of the income will collect four times the revenue as a 10% tax on the lowest 20% of income. Of course, that's income. The wealthiest people don't have incomes, they have investments. Which is why people keep imagining these disparities.

We need to stop trying to make things "fair". Instead of punishing the rich for being rich, maybe we should think about helping the poor. Instead of raising the taxes on the high end, why not lower the taxes on the low end? Increase the standard deduction?

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[_Sharp'r_]

Now try and apply that to the reality of the changes in the student loan program and you'll see that your example has absolutely no relation to reality.

The per student amount of loans available was raised considerably. The artifically low interest rates subsidized by the government were allowed to rise a couple percent, but with the benefit of becoming fixed instead of variable. Interest rates in the US have been rising recently, you might also note.

Any student who is currently eligible for a student loan would still be eligible after the changes and could actually get a bigger loan to deal with inflation. What's going on is that down the road when they go to pay it off, they'll have to pay more for the loans they took out, thus saving the taxpayers some money over the next 5 years.

So how does that scenario reduce the availability of student loans for students again? Answer, it doesn't, it just affects the eventual payback by the now working professional.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

What makes them good? Are they as good as those who didn't take paycuts and ended up making as much as they ended up taking home?

If John Bloe takes a 75% cut in pay to lets say $100,000. Is he *better* than someone who doesn't take a pay cut and ends up with $100,000?

It gets really murky really fast. Be carefull who you call Good and Evil ( a lesson our president could stand to learn), in the end you don't really have a clue when it comes down to judging people.

But we can say that taking a 75% pay cut was a good action. I don't mena to say that there isn't an absolute good or evil, but it applies to actions only, not people.

Just my random 2cents. Not very well thought out, but I'll post it anyways.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[_Sharp'r_]

See this comment for a more detailed explanation of the actual changes and you'll see that your example concept has no relation to what is actually going on.

Under the "changes", it is estimated that more loans in larger dollar amounts will be given out (since they raised the loan caps) than before the changes. The estimated savings come from increased repayment down the road, not reduced loans being made.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[AK Marc]

It's like having roads or a standing army, the kind of thing that everyone benefits from.

I would like to know how I benefit from a standing army. I'm trying to think of the last time that some member of the standing army did something to assist me in the course of his duties. Well, I'm coming up blank. So, if you can, please give me a single benefit that affects me (no, protection from the Nazis/Commies/Terrorists/or other foe of the moment doesn't count as a benefit). Since WWII, I've seen no country that had the capabilities or desire to invade the US. Everyone has to cross an ocean to get to us (except Mexico and Canada, obviously) and no one has a force capable of making the trip as a unit that is bigger or better equipped than the sum of the civilian police force or national guard (I think that the Texas National Guard is, if called up, one of the largest armies in the world, at least that's what I remember someone telling me while I was living there). All the standing army does is take my money.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[tompaulco]

Okay, I looked it up. The first site I came across shows US literacy rates at 92% in the 1920s. The site also lists the rate at 99% in 1970, the last decade for which they show data. I think both of these figures are a bit high, but what do I know.
Another site shows current literacy rate inthe U.S. as 99.5% according to one poll, and 95% according to another. Yet another site says that 50% of US persons are barely literate. Maybe that means they can't read Shakespeare. Or maybe it means they can read Shakespeare but prefer not to. I don't think Shakespeare's "works" (good thing copywrite law wasn't around back then, huh?) should necessarily be the bar that determines literacy. There are plenty of works within the last 100 years of equal or higher import.
I remember seeing commercials on TV even in the last few years which stated things like "half of adults in the United States can't read" which I think is a staggeringly wrong number based on my experience. But hey, it's TV, so they can say whatever they want to make you break out your checkbook. I guess the moral of that is, don't give poor people TVs, because there is far more untruth then truth.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Surt]

The flat tax doesn't work well, particularly toward the bottom of the income chain. Taking $1000 from a guy making $10k per year does a lot more harm than taking $10k from a guy making $100k. It seems fairly clear that taking an increasing percentage as your earnings go up is fairer (the more benefit you get from the system, the more you pay to support the system).

And yes, I certainly agree that rather than taxing income, we ought to tax wealth. A flat tax on wealth at the end of each year would work comparatively well: the guy making 10k per year has basically no wealth, and so pays no tax. The guy making millions per year with hundreds of millions in assets pays for the government that protects him from getting lynched by the 10k guy.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Anonymous Coward]

You caught me, your paranoia superseded my attempt to give you the benefit of the doubt. Clearly you have digested the GP and decided that any value in information from a television set is lost due to the vast government conspiracy to spread lies via it's menacing propaganda machine.

I would have stayed quiet at illiterate, they lock you up for paranoia.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[AK Marc]

The wealthiest people don't have incomes, they have investments. Which is why people keep imagining these disparities.

"Imagining?" There is a real disparity. The rich grow their fortunes tax-free. The poor have no fortunes to grow, so all their income is taxed. The embeded wealth is a very real part of the growind disparity between the rich and the poor. It is not a bad thing to try to target wealth as a basis of taxation, as that is also a much better indicator of beenfits received than income. It is the wealthy, not those with great income that receive the greatest protections from the FDIC, FTC, Federal Reserve, et al. But wealth is harder to catch than income, so we sometime get both, just to shelter the most needy from an excessive tax burden.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[bdowne01]

As my new proverb states: Both sex AND sensationalist news sell!

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Anonymous Coward]

Arguing the government should increase military pay is different than arguing for a different tax system. Your's works out. You also have a significant amount of benefits meant, as military, to give you a jumpstart on life. GI Bills and VA Loans being the least of these. You get quite a bit of money, you just have to use it.

Still, you deserve higher pay.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Aqua OS X]

Considering the current abysmal state of TV "news," the constant barrage of advertisements and product placements, and TV's general mind numbing qualities... I would say it's probably very healthy for poor people to be unplugged from the idiot box.

TV can be a useful communication tool, especially in the event of a disaster, crisis, etc. But, more often then not, it's a drug that appeases the masses and makes people lust for crap they don't need or can't afford.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[spitzak]

From Wikipedia:

The EITC in the United States is characterized by a unique three-stage structure that consists of a phase-in range in which the credit increases as earnings increase, a plateau range in which the maximum credit has been reached and further earnings do not affect it, and a phase-out range in which the credit decreases as earnings increase. Currently, for a family with two dependent children, the credit is equal to 40 percent of the first $10,750 earned, plateaus at a maximum credit of $4,400, begins to phase-out when earnings increase beyond approximately $15,000, and reaches zero when earnings pass approximately $35,000. For a family with one dependent child, the structure is similar but has a phase-in rate of 34 percent and a maximum credit of $2,604. For those filing without dependents, there is a small credit of 7.65 percent of earnings with a maximum of $380. All dollar amounts are now indexed to inflation.

So there you have it, for all the naysayers and arguements on all sides. There really is a "negative tax rate". However note that a single person gets no more than $380, which is about the same amout as the Bush tax refund a few years ago. Not sure why it is arranged this way as that amount is uselessly small to effect anything. It looks more like the credit amount, ignoring this trivial $380, is approximately equal to the deduction for dependents. Thus it would be equivalent to instead refund a fixed amount per dependent, rather than deduct a fixed amount from income, to achieve the same result.

As others have pointed out the total handout is obviously smaller than what a family pays in sales and property taxes, so in no way does anybody get out of a tax burden.

The Wikipedia article goes on to say that the EITC is actually a really great and efficient welfare system. This may be true, I have no idea, and it is hard to tell if the writer has some agenda (either right or left). I would believe that simple things like this can be much more effective than a beuracracy.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[atomic_toaster]

If we converted to digital and left the poorest of our nation out in the cold, we'd devolve into some discussion about how the evil government was depriving the weakest among us from access to a free press, possibly even with a few stats peppered in about how TV is even more important for them because of illiteracy rates, and so on, and maybe some good socialism arguments to boot.

I see your point about damned if you do/dont, but that aside... The whole thing here is that nobody needs television. It's a privilege, not a right. And even if it was a right, who's stopping all of these poor, illterate, TV-starved people from going to a library (which the government already funds), which has *gasp* free books, movies, and often has screening rooms or free screenings. Even if all poor people were illiterate (which doesn't happen that much in the States, face it), that still leaves the other options open. Oh yes, and libraries provide warmth, shelter, and bathroom facilities as well, so even the homeless could use them without being "left in the cold".

Come on, government, put that $1.5 billion into the nation's libraries, not into upgrading peoples' ancient televisions!

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, entertaining the masses has been part of the government's job for much of history-- check out Greek theater, for example.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Guppy06]

"The problem in every situation I've seen it applied is that people are either unaware of what is offered, or more commonly unable to use it."

Then wouldn't it make more sense to spend the money on making people more aware of the program rather than buying them a new television? If the federal government has the resources to distribute these vouchers, they have the resources for a direct mail campaign.

"Radios aren't in many houses,"

What wakes them up in the morning so they can get to work? It's easier to find a clock/radio for your nightstand than to find a clock without a radio.

"Not everyone has a car (especially in cities,"

I've never seen anybody bring a television onto a bus, but I've seen a fair number of radios.

"especially if they are financially struggling),"

A cheap AM/FM radio is orders of magnitude less expensive than a cheap television, even if you splurge for stereo on the radio and settle for black-and-white on the television. The Walkman has been out for decades, and that was decades after the first personal radio. If we're going to shell out federal pork so people can get their precious, precious receivers, you'll get more bang for your buck by buying everybody a headset.

"and we're not talking about replacing the radio."

But we are talking about a medium that is undeniably less pervasive than radio that is somehow justified in having all this federal pork spent on it.

"Nor is it relevant what people's employers do as employers tend to buy the TV."

I can't remember the last job in which a television was provided, even in a break room. But many (if not most) of my fellow employees had a radio on their desk.

"But slashdot is first and foremost about technology, and TV, whether we like it or not, has a pretty significant impact on a huge number of people."

Whether or not it "has an impact" is moot. The only people it impacts are those who use it, those who are interested in using it. This is not the road system, this is not the military, this is an entirely pull-type service paid for by the people who already bought their receivers and the advertisers already paying for the programming. Other than regulating who can use what channel when and where, there is no compelling reason for the government (least of all the federal government) to get involved, especially when there is a minority of people (however small) who will see zero benefit from these vouchers.

Back in the 1980's we also saw that the recipe used by Coca-Cola "has a pretty signifigant impact on a huge number of people." Should the federal government now start passing out vouchers for a free 2 L?

"It makes sense for the government to make sure it continues to be accessible (particularly since it is depriving those people of something they already bought)."

Then the federal government should not be depriving the people of analog broadcasts to begin with. Two wrongs do not make a right.

"Further, as this is a one time charge, it's not as big of a deal as trying to fund recurring programs."

Whether or not it's one-time or not is irrelevent, it's still my tax dollars, and they're being spent to benefit broadcasters and electronics manufacturers rather than the people in general. After all, the government will be handing out vouchers, not cash (much like notorious class-action lawsuits).

It also sets a very bad precedent.

"We send tens of billions of dollars in "aid packages" to places that grossly misappropriate our money, I'm not sure $1.5B to upgrade TV sets is really worth the angst."

Simply because it's "not as bad as" in relative terms doesn't make it good in the absolute.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[AK Marc]

Just admit it. You think that anyone with enough drive and capacity to produce enough income to live in an OK townhouse and own two cars that they have to drive an hour and half each day to the job where they work 70 hours should be forced to support other people who don't.

Insightful? How could this utter crap be modded insightful? Incite-full would be more like it. Oh, and wrong, too. I'm in the upper middle class you talk about. I have a house, a couple cars, and all that. I pay less than 20% in direct taxes. Yes, when you add up federal income tax, medicare, social security, state income/sales tax, local sales/property tax, and all other taxes levied directly on me (vehicle taxes and any other fees or such) I still pay less than 20%, and I'm in the top 20% of wage earners. As a top wage earner, I can say that the top wage earners do not see any additional negative impact on their finances due to the progressive taxation.

It is an issue of the most wealthy getting the greatest benefit from our government, so they should pay the most for it. Sure, they aren't being handed checks, but the government is the one that allows formation of corporations in which they invest and get returns. The government is the one that forms the standing army to defend their wealth from any invaders. The poorest couldn't care less about the standing army. The peasants in Europe never noticed a change in government. They trodded along, only careing about war when it affected their fields, or if they had the opportunity to cheer or throw tomatoes at the officials. Their day-to-day life was completely unchanged. That's not the case for the wealthy when a new government decides to nationalize the assetts of the wealthy. They have the most to lose, by far, and are therefore the ones with the greatest benefit. It makes sense that they get charged a higher rate.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Dcnjoe60]

We bitch about and make light of all the delays going digital, and then we bitch when the government propose to help disadvantaged groups to maintain access to broadcast television, for whatever it's worth.

When it is the government that mandates the change (instead of the market) and then the same government will pay money to buy equipment, why shouldn't we bitch? The original reason had nothing to do with giving the analog spectrum back. The purpose of the government mandate was to bail out the failing US television manufacturers. The idea being if everyone had to buy a new TV, to the American standard (not Japan or Europe), then they (the manufacturers) would be able to fend off the imports. Unfortunately, by now, there are no TVs manufactured in America and this has become a windfall to the very imports it was meant to protect against.

Case in point, early on, broadcasters realized they could send four analog quality programs down the data stream meant for one high definition program. All that would be required on the receiving end was an inexpensive (sub $50) decoder. Broadcasters were happy, because they could provide four times the content. Consumers were happy because they wouldn't have to junk their existing televisions. Everyone is happy except the membres of the High Tech DTV Coalition, because they can't capitalize on it. So the Coalition (Microsoft, Intel, Dell, etc) lobby congress and what happens? The telecom bill prohibits spliting the high bandwith signal for low bandwith receivers.

The $1.5B transition cost is the tip of the iceberg. How many billions of dollars will shift from consumers to the big players in HDTV? The HDTV bill was nothing more than more corporate welfare given to wealthy companies. This time, however, the government found away to do it where they don't have to be involved in the collection process.

Remember, your current TV has become obsolete not because of technology, but because of government mandate.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Guppy06]

"Actually, entertaining the masses has been part of the government's job for much of history-- check out Greek theater, for example."

Note that the ancient Greek governments that provided that theater isn't around any more. They were conqeured by the Romans, who in turn were themselves conquered when they focused on bread and circuses.

But none of this matters, because we have a written constitution that describes what is the role of the federal government, and "entertaining the masses" appears nowhere in the document. If anything, it would be the duty of a state, but to my knowledge no state constitution has such a clause either.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[AK Marc]

As the GP said, the top %5 pay the majority of the tax dollars already, both in total $$ and % of income.

What about % of wealth? I see the benefits being tied to wealth, not income. The stock market (FTC), standing army, trade treaties (IP rules and such) are in defence of wealth, not the promotion of income. But, since we can't tax wealth easily, then income is taxed. But that doesn't mean that income is the best predictor of benefits.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[hackstraw]

When it comes time to actually pass the budget, the government gives you a budget of $125 a day budget, a 25% increase over this year's budget. However, government projections of prices and enrollments were on target. Apples now cost 60 cents and you have to provide apples for 220 students each day.

You can only purchase 208 applies, which means that 12 students are no longer covered.

Did your budget increase? Yes.
Did you cut back on the percentage of students you can serve and the services you offer? Yes.

Thus not increasing by as much as planned does equal cutting back.

The thing with our society that is never discussed is its dependance on an increasing population for economic gain.

The US is the only industrialized nation with an increasing population. Sure, the students will go from 200 to 220, but its also under the assumption that you now have 40 new tax paying citizens to pay for the rise in the number of students.

Even if the 40 new tax paying "citizens" are illegal immigrants, they still pay residual taxes, and allow for 40 other legal citizens to be freed up to do higher paying jobs (higher taxes) than your typical illegal immigrant labor position.

The thing is that the US cannot depend on this rise in population forever. SSN is going bust, the debt keeps rising, yada yada.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Anonymous Coward]

How about anyone who isn't a student? You should feel fortunate you make any money at all from your "highly skilled job" of "grad student."

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[daveschroeder]

gee Dave, I'm a grad student at the very institution where you work, doing quantum physics, a job you could never do.

What would make you say something like that? Arrogance? Did you even look at my web page or CV? And no matter what I did or what my educational background, still, why would you say something like that? "A job you could never do?" WTF?

Yet, I am in that bottom 20% despite my highly skilled job at which I work ~80 hours per week.

Good for you. And let me get this straight - you're actually bringing grad school into this argument, and doing it with a straight face?

Who exactly 'deserves' to make more money than me? Name one person.

Did I say anything about who "deserves" what? And aside from that, there are probably quite large numbers of people who "deserve" to make more money than you, but that's hardly the point.

On top of that, my services are routinely cut, the state wants me to pay for my own healthcare, and my 'raises' neverkeep up with inflation.

Another big eye roller, here.

First of all, your "services" as a grad student are second to none. You make shit for money, like ALL grad students. And this is news to you? Yes, poor you, doing a physics PhD. I'm sure you'll be suffering your whole life.

Second, the state never wanted you to pay for your own healthcare. In fact, I can't even believe you said that. The state wanted graduate students to pay SOMETHING for their healthcare. In fact, it was a premium that would have been under $10/month. Yes, that's right, folks: graduate students at the University of Wisconsin have paid $0 for FULL healthcare. Your stipend as a graduate student is not designed to be luxurious, and never has been. The ridiculousness of you bringing a grad student stipend into this discussion is beyond belief.

And on top of it, at your income level, you already pay no federal tax.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Maxo-Texas]

No it is NOT apples to oranges.

If inflation raises tuition 10% and the grant budget was supposed to go up 10% and they only increase it 2%, then a lot less students are going to get grants.

As another poster in this thread said:
If you consider getting a 1% raise a raise when there is 3% inflation, then your employer must love you.

You must always adjust things for inflation- it is the single biggest problem with the way they write many laws in this country. It is why the AMT is becoming a defacto "flat tax" because they didn't index it for inflation.

---
On a separate note, for those who can't read what I wrote...

My tuition 13 years ago was 183 for 12-14 hours of courses.
The same college now charges 1700+ for 12-14 hours of courses.

During that time pell grants and other government assistance has not kept pace with that increase. In inflation adjusted dollars, the programs have experience over a 50% cut while huge tax cuts were given to the wealthy.
We are wasting a lot of brains willing to work hard for the country and produce new wealth because of these cuts. These programs encouraged behavior beneficial to society and they were -cheap- and would be -cheap- (basically a rounding error) even if they had been inflation adjusted.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[saltydogdesign]

We bitch about and make light of all the delays going digital, and then we bitch when the government propose to help disadvantaged groups to maintain access to broadcast television, for whatever it's worth.

We? What makes you think it's the same people bitching about both?

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

ver a full third of taxpayers in this country pay no taxes at all. The top 1% of taxpayers - and these aren't all or even mostly people who are fabulously wealthy; these include people who make just over $250,000/year in household income - as of 2004, pay over 40% of the tax. The top 5% now pay over 60% of the tax. The entire bottom 50% now pay less than 3% of the tax burden, and most of them are at the upper part of the 50%. The bottom 35% pay nothing.

Looking at the numbers you are listing, you are only talking about income to evaluate taxes, not total wealth. If I recall correctly the last census indicated that when you add up the lowest 48% of all households income and savings and debt you reached a net total of zero, with the debt just balancing the savings and income. That debt is owed to someone, and they're not in the bottom 48%. Nearly half the wealth in this country is controlled by less than 5% of the population. That 5% should pay more proportionally, since they are not the ones suffering from poverty. Your claims of the rich being overtaxed are belied by the shrinking middle class and growing lower class. More and more people have less and less each day, while the very small top 10-15% controls disproportionately more and more wealth. Also, the inheritance tax, the single most progressive tax, is being dismantled as we speak. Stop watching right-wing propaganda and just read the actual census and analyze the numbers yourself.

Since, as you say, the more fortunate have more than enough money, perhaps we could take some of theirs, and simply give it to the poor?

You do know what happens when the majority become very poor and a small wealthy class is established. Eventually, the poor chop off the heads of the rich and start a new government. I'm not too confident that this new system will be as well constructed as what we came up with 200 years ago. In any case the rich pay more taxes, so they don't get killed for exploiting the poor (at least if they are smart they do).

From the "technology isn't bad, it's just technology" crowd, and indictment of a communication technology.

Agreed. They should have complained about the programming on TV, not the technology.

Otherwise, we should trash newspapers and "Shakespear" (sic - hmm, maybe you're right about the dumbing down...), too.

Before you make an idiot of yourself, please at least investigate your opinions. Shakespeare spelled his own name in different ways at different times. Spelling was much more nebulous in the Elizabethan era, and using a less common spelling is in no way incorrect.

The lack of personal responsibility, however, is. Of course, your message doesn't seem to hold personal responsibility in very high regard, so your assessment isn't surprising.

I'm all for personal responsibility. If the poor are not given equal opportunities and a chance to advance, then those in power can hold themselves personally responsible for their own messy deaths when the poor revolt. The American dream is a farce. Of the wealthiest 5% of people in the US during the last census, only a handful did not have a parent in the wealthiest 5%. I, for one, don't believe that is because of superior genetics. It is because it takes money to make money and connections are more important that intelligence or skill. The deck is well stacked. As more and more of our population live their lives in debt, or with very little, and as ever fewer find the means to own land or a home they become ever more restless. The least wealthy 5% is already imprisoned and denied the ability to vote. That ship has sailed. You can only push people down so far, before they push back.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Obfuscant]

It is taking action to reduce something to less than what would have occured without the action.

How convenient to forget that under the US method of budgeting, "without the action" means there would be NO money being spent. It takes a positive action for each year's budget to be passed, and for money to be allocated for various things. Without the action == no money.

And yes, the "action" of allocating MORE money next year than was allocated this year is still an INCREASE, even if it wasn't as much as you wanted allocated.

Let's not play games with semantics.

So stop playing games with semantics. An increase in spending is not a cut in spending. All the fuzzy-warm-happy programs handing money out to people are going to get more next year -- just not as much as you want them to, perhaps. More than they ought, certainly.

This political nonsense has nothing to do with the switch to digital tv.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[briancnorton]

While I applaud your sentiment, this is an overly simplified view of the world. The part that you have completely left out is that there are geopolitical areas in this country and this world that have been in a downward spiral of economic collapse for all time. When wealth concentrates in small areas, it creates a number of problems such as overpopulation, pollution, traffic jams, etc etc. In this country we have delegated the job of managable, balanced economic development to the federal government. We collect and redistribute these resources to maintain and mprove quality of life for everyone. Our military protects everybody equally. Our highway system is of reasonably equal quality everywhere.

The inherent failure of your simple world can easily be seen in our educational system. There is no reason that a child in beverly hills should get a better public education than a child in alabama, yet our system is set up so that local communities are in charge of their educational systems, and great disparities emerge as local priorities and resources are expressed in school funding. Meanwhile Bradley Charles Weatherby III gets a top notch public education and Cleatus B Dingleberry doesn't even have books printed in the last 50 years.

My point is this. It's too easy to look at a few useless sacks of crap that stay on welfare because they are lazy and dismiss the entire rank of poor people. The fact is that many of them are hard workers who lack access to education, economic opportunity, or cultural drive to succeed. Through successful redistribution of resources, improving the educational, economic, and social climates where these people live, we can provide a tangible benefit to everyone, including the "upper middle class" workhorses of our country.

Internationally, the situation changes. We ARE in a competitieve climate for resources, and it will only get worse. China and India have over two billion people that want what we have, and the physical material that it would take to get it to all of them does not exist. Energy, metals, food, fresh water, all of these exist in limited supply. You can't eat or drink wealth, nor can you build a townhouse from it. The minute you stop competeing, you learn this the hard way.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[uncqual]

The notion that the tax burden should depend on ones "Wealth" is dangerous.

"Wealth" is very different from "Income" while "Consumption" is very different from both. Taxes can be levied on any of the three items (or others of course).

The current U.S. personal tax system primarily taxes "Income" (income tax) and, to a lesser extent, "Consumption" (as in sales tax and "luxury" taxes).

The only significant personal "Wealth" tax in the U.S. that comes to mind is property tax. Generally property tax is very progressive - the poorest pay little direct property tax (they tend to rent or live in low cost housing) while consuming the bulk of the benefits (subsidized public health programs, transportation, and education) and the highest income individuals tend to pay high direct property taxes (since they tend to live in expensive homes and own businesses) and reap few if any of the direct benefits (they pay for their own health care [and more], rarely use public transportation [except for politicians who want to make a point], and send their children to private school).

So, what is the "fairest" thing to tax? The usual claim of "unfairness" in the U.S. system of taxation seems to, at the root, be that individuals who enjoy a lot of creature comforts don't pay their "fair" share compared to individuals who have a minimum of creature comforts. It turns out, these creature comforts are a direct result of consumption, not income or wealth.

The only way to substantially enjoy ones wealth is to spend (i.e., consume) it - if you have $1B USD in corporate bonds and stocks and spend only $20K a year, your lifestyle is not much different from a fairly low paid worker BUT your $1B is helping create and sustain jobs. Sure, you're getting a revenue stream from your investment, but obviously less than what someone else thought the assets were worth (else there would have been no willing sellers of the stock you own or willing borrowers of your money) and your lifestyle is not improved by this revenue stream. This investment revenue stream must just be being plowed back into creating and sustaining more jobs (unless you're a horrible investor!) since at most $20K/year is being consumed for creature comforts. Sure, you have a greater feeling of "well being" because you have money for a rainy day which the fairly low paid worker doesn't - but taxing "feelings of well being" seems odd (presumably that would result in taxing those who follow a religion since a feeling of "well being" is something that most religions tout either explicitly or implicitly and would also result in very rich, but emotionally depressed, people paying no taxes).

Consider two single developers working side by side at similar jobs and both earning a salary of $75K/year (for the moment, ignore taxes since "appropriate taxation" is the issue we are addressing):

The first (call them "Mr. Frugal") spends $25K/year ($10K for a studio apartment, $15K for other stuff) and owns an old car, a 20 year old 19 inch color TV, eschews cable TV, and has a wardrobe consisting mostly of t-shirts with product and company names on them. The remaining $50K a year is invested in stocks and corporate bonds.

The second (call them "Mr. HighRoller") spends $75K/year ($25K for a nice apartment, $50K for other stuff) and always has a nice current model year car, a high end HD TV not more than three years old, the best of cable TV packages, and a wardrobe full of the latest designer labels. Since there is no "remaining" money, HighRoller saves or invests nothing.

After working for 45 years, Frugal has well in excess of $2.25M (inflation adjusted of course and assuming the investments were not too stupid) and retires comfortably - never requiring a penny of public assistance. On the other hand, HighRoller retires with NOTHING (except rapidly depreciating designer clothes, HDTV set, and high end car) and ends up living on Social Security

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[saltydogdesign]

Among the many people I know who are arguably upper-middle-class (I'm not one of them), none of them were "born wealthy."

I wish I had time to pick your goofy argument apart piece by piece, but since I work for a living, I'll just take this one point and make a point of my own using your screwed up, baseless logic: Among the many birds I have seen out my kitchen window, none of them were being eaten by cats. Therefore, predation does not exist.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Qzukk]

Just admit it. You think that anyone with enough drive and capacity to produce enough income

And yet, if everyone had infinite drive and capacity, we'd still have "haves" and "have nots" because even if everyone was a rocket scientist PhD who could read a book in an afternoon and instantly "retool" to any other profession, there'd still be more people than things for those people to do. Especially things for people to do that pay "middle-class" salaries.

But hey, let's say that the job market magically expands for a couple of hundred million engineers, designers, doctors, lawyers, programmers and so on, and everyone gets a nice job paying a sufficient salary to make sure they can afford some kind of personal housing, as well as food and some spending money, who the hell is going to flip you a $3 burger?

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[saltydogdesign]

Since when does tax policy have anything to do with whether people are good or bad?

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[huge colin]

What about the fact that a horrible outdated "technology" (if you can even call it that) will finally disappear forever in the name of progress? I'm pretty damn happy about that.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Arandir]

You've completely misread my post. The solution is to LOWER THE TAXES ON THE POOR! This isn't about "fairness", that's an imaginary attribute invented by weepy people to make other people weepy as well. If you want to help the poor, then start by helping the poor, because punishing the rich will not do it!

And I certainly was not advocating taxing wealth. That's a monstrously stupid idea. A person's wealth is invariably tied up in investments, so that taxing wealth is to tax investments. That's a huge monkey wrench in the economy! We're not talking capital gains when you recoup your investment, we're talking a direct tax on investments themselves! You're replacing a capital gains tax with a capital tax! Aaargh!

Real estate is an investment. Imagine being taxed 10% on the value of your home. Every year. You would pay $30,000, every year, for your $300,000 house (which is a low value in my area). Even if you bought it thirty years ago for $30,000. If you thought property tax was high, wait until the new wealth tax kicks in! And the poor will love you do death with their new 10% increase in rents!

Even if you make exceptions for houses, retirement accounts, pensions, and other "legitimate" wealth, you're still taxing investment. That's where the wealthy's wealth is! They're wealth isn't their income, or their yacht, or their home, or their wine cellar. Their wealth is in the stocks, bonds, real estate and other investments. To translate, their wealth is in the busiensses that employ the poor, the businesses where the poor shop, and the apartments where the poor live. Taxing actual wealth would seriously harm the poor, as they would find themselves out of work, facing high consumer prices, and coping with a rent increase.

Please, please, please, read a basic text on economics before you start advocating a tax on wealth. Wealth is not the problem, poverty is the problem.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[SilverspurG]

The notion that the tax burden should depend on ones "Wealth" is dangerous

I'm not so much concered with how the tax is gathered or who pays it anymore. The more important consideration to prove the point is to consider where it goes.

Imagine any run of the mill $84 billion dollar federal appropriation. How many pockets does that go through until it gets to the guy moving boxes in the back of the warehouse? If you could take that $84 billion and plot it as a set of day-by-day payments from the very day that was signed by the President until it's completely spent what would you see? Personally I'd rather be the guy taking a one-time payment of $500k in the first few days than the poor fellow who has the privelege of making $9.50/hour for the next 30 years. With a $500k startup allowance I can invest in a company to provide competing services moving those boxes at $8.50/hour. When the guy making $9.50/hour is put out of work I can hire him at $7.50/hour to mow my lawn. That's the start of a gravy train.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[AK Marc]

Big Government-More Taxes-Whining libs complaining about huge government making huge sloppy decisions is a wonderful example of the hypocrisy of libs to me.

So, the only president in recent history that got a surplus, a liberal, is whining and making sloppy decisions, while Bushs increase the debt and the deficit at a huge rate? Why are "libs" the target of your rant when it is obviously the Conservatives that are the irresponsible little children with no sense of responsibility? They spend and spend, and it isn't even money that we have.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[dabigpaybackski]

Thank you.

From an honest humanitarian point of view, the last thing most poor people need is television. Television discourages literacy. Television espouses bad ideas and bad behavior. It has the effect of further hardening of class boundaries by training a passive audience through the power of suggestion.

This is why, in everyday life, there is nothing more pernicious than television. It undermines critical thinking, makes vulgarians out of civilized people, and though the power of bad example ("JER-REE! JER-REE!"), encourages the poor to remain a malleable rabble of child-like peasants. The elite knows this, which is why subsidizing televisions makes perfect sense. TV is their best friend. Social control requires a program of systematic human mutilation.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Obfuscant]

That the first responders had problems communicating due to bandwidth limitations is a fact.

No, that is complete nonsense.

Communication problems were caused by two main things:

• Complicated, poorly designed communications systems that meet (sometimes just barely) average load requirements.
• Expensive systems that take a lot of money to implement, with several different standards being used.

When a system that is designed to meet average load meets the emergency, it fails. Period. No amount of extra bandwidth will help it. When a system that absolutely depends on having a "control channel" AND a central repeater wind up with either or both resources missing or unavailable, the system fails, period.

Firefighters inside the WTC could not talk to police because their systems were DESIGNED not to be able to talk to them. Police couldn't talk to each other because their fancy trunked systems couldn't coordinate a clear channel -- because the control channel was dead. This is not a bandwidth problem.

Then add the problem of outside agencies coming into an area with their own equipment. Some agencies simply cannot afford the fancy trunked digital systems, so they had analog radios that didn't communicate with anyone else. Some have fancy digital radios, but nobody at the scene could reprogram them to talk on the right channels. Some have fancy digital radios and someone on staff at the scene to program them, but they were using a different standard so they couldn't talk anyway. None of that is a "bandwidth" issue.

There is bandwidth allocated for this kind of stuff. There have been interoperability channels assigned for emergency use for YEARS, in all three main public service bands (150,450 and 800MHz), including specific repeater pairs. I personally programmed these into our local SAR radios, but I'm almost certain that they are NOT programmed into the local fire and police radios.

Even with those channels, there are equipment issues limiting their use. They are all split-split frequencies, which means that for VHF the radio has to deal with a 2.5kHz VFO step and 7.5kHz channel spacing. Some of the affordable modern equipment doesn't do that.

But to call this a bandwidth issue is simply ridiculous. It's a technical failure caused most by the ASSUMPTION on the part of emergency planners that critical infrastructure will still be in place when needed for an emergency, and that is will work perfectly. The state I live in even makes this statement explicitely (not the "perfectly" part, but the rest) in it's state disaster plan. "Mountain shake, antenna on top fall over, nobody communicate" just doesn't seem to fit in the picture for earthquake planning. But allocating more bandwidth isn't a solution to that problem. Allocating money to buy a portable repeater, and having someone trained to know how to set it up, is.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Surt]

The main problem with consumption tax is again avoiding taxing the poor. You pretty much have to exclude taxing food, rent, energy to make it workable. And I'm guessing many economists will argue about whether Frugal or HighRoller are better for the economy, and who therefore ought to be encouraged. I certainly don't see where you can claim that one creates more long term jobs. New car buyers hold up thousands of long term automotive industry jobs.

In any case, I think it is fairly safe to say that the current system is imperfect, and that whatever system we might transition to should place more tax burden on the wealthy in one way or another.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Austerity Empowers]

So you're seriously arguing that radio remains more pervasive than TV, and that existing TVs becoming obsolete impacts so few people that it is limited only to constituents of the current administration? That would fit "pork" and your definition of impact. I'll admit that I do not heavily research my off the cuff slashdot posts, but this fails common sense.

I guess we're too far apart to argue. There ARE a lot of radios out there, I could concede that point but I would argue that since they're bundled with casette players, clocks, walkmans, cd-players and stereo's that perhaps it's not something that's used anywhere near as often. I can concede that you do not agree with the switch from analog to digital, thus necessitating this whole mess. It's been argued a long time, I am personally for it, I think the benefits outweigh the drawbacks (of which $1.5B seems to be one). I can't see this as pork though, this has been 4 administrations in the making and will apparently make it to a 5th, regardless of who funds it, the electronics industry has been assured of money once it was decided upon. I can't see how coca-cola formula changes are even a close parallel. I can't see that so many people losing working televisions via government mandate is not going to be hurtful. I can't see how anyone could seriously argue a radio would be an acceptable solution to a broken TV set.

We pay regularly for many services that we personally do not need, including education, welfare, foreign aid, housing assistance, defense, etc. But there's enough people out there that do need that stuff that we pay anyway. This seems to affect a vast majority of people, has a pretty small cost, and neither adds nor subtracts significantly to other policies. I don't see why it's bad. If I were omnipotent I would simply ensure the vouchers got where they're needed, but I wouldn't begrudge anyone the money.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[ScentCone]

But hey, let's say that the job market magically expands for a couple of hundred million engineers, designers, doctors, lawyers, programmers and so on, and everyone gets a nice job paying a sufficient salary to make sure they can afford some kind of personal housing, as well as food and some spending money, who the hell is going to flip you a $3 burger?

There's a reason that's an "entry level job." Or, it should be. I'm not upper-middle class, just plain old middle. But I also did my time, as a young guy, doing menial labor for low wages. There are lots of people who aren't ready, yet, for professional employment. There always will be. It's assuming that those are jobs to keep for life that is one of our biggest problems. In some families, that's just taken as a fact of life, and higher aspirations are actually shot down out of some strange sense of, I don't know, fear? But entry level jobs are just that: a place to start. You shouldn't aspire to stay in one (unless you like a monkish existence), and you sure as hell shouldn't launch a big family when that's all you have to work with, financially. But people in their late teens and early twenties are usually too muddle-headed to really have their entire career already dialed in - and that makes the physical challenges and intellectual ease of starter jobs a pretty good recipe. It was for me, anyway. Now I stare at a screen all day and push bits around, something my younger self would have had a hard time imagining doing - but then, when I was 18, I'd have had a hard time imagining how I would actally go about owning a decent vehicle, affording some personal pursuits, and eating non-Velveeta cheese (with $10 wine!).

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[SilverspurG]

For the most part I've been agreeing with your position. We do need to be fair to Clinton, though. The only reason why he did so well, economically, is because he and the other controlling politicians at the time signed the legislation which primed the pump for the stock market bubble. I recall, even as late as '99, some predictions that the federal government would actually be running a surplus by 2005. It was all based on that technology bubble. Seriously. The tech sector came out of nowhere and, in a span of 5 years, made itself something like 40% (I only saw a color pie graph, but it was huge) of a market which has existed for decades. The projected profits from that made everything look rosy. Now in the last 5 years we've got more companies restating their IRS filings than people ever arrested for making false filings.

Not that Clinton was necessarily good or bad. Clinton looked good economically but I bet the Republicans say it was just because he was setting them up with an overinflated balloon. Politics gets so dirty.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Surt]

Wealth disparity is the problem. And I've had plenty of economics. A tax on wealth would work just fine after an initial transition period. (Granted, an immediate changeover would be horribly disruptive). But ultimately, a tax on wealth would be more moral and ethical, and frankly, that's what is important to me, more so than convenience.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[TheSync]

According to the CBO, effective total Federal tax rates on the lowest 20 million income earners (avg. income $14,800) is 4.8%, and the next lowest 20 million income earners (avg. income $34,100) have an effective Federal tax rate of 9.8%. This is a total of Federal taxes including payroll and excise taxes. Income taxes for both of these quintiles is actually negative because of the Earned Income Tax Credit.

The top 20 million income households (avg. income $180,500) pay 25% effective total Federal Tax rate. The top 1% of income earning households pay a 31.4% effective total Federal tax rate.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[ScentCone]

A little context, please. You DID read the comment I was responding to, right? Do you feel that you're living on someone else's money? I don't either, and hence my comment.

I still pay less than 20%, and I'm in the top 20% of wage earners.

I'm curious what state you live in. My tax load is more like 32% (we have very high personal income taxes in my state, and my local county adds another 50% of the state rate onto the pile, and then there's everything else). And since my wife and I are definitely not in the top 20% of earning households (she's a starving artist), I'd say that no, you're not feeling too much progressive tax pain, compared to me. Lucky you.

As a top wage earner, I can say that the top wage earners do not see any additional negative impact on their finances due to the progressive taxation.

And of course, that's not what I was saying. I was responding to the GP, who indicated that life's not fair because people like you and me are marginalizing poor people, and are currently in receipt of "their" money, which we have somehow appropriated, robber barons that we are (how was your last "$10M birthday party?"). You referred to my comment as "utter crap," but I'm really not sure you're seeing the context of my response.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Gruneun]

I wrote three long paragraphs that addressed the points in your post, but decided to keep them to myself. Suffice it to say, if you actually believe your tirade to be true, I suggest you forward it on to your graduate advisor and department head. Perhaps, they can assist both you and a far-less-deserving person to find more appropriate positions.

If, upon further review, you decide that you may actually be in a pretty good spot, I suggest you keep it to yourself.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[ScentCone]

I'll just take this one point and make a point of my own using your screwed up, baseless logic

Ah. So, where is your whitheringly sharp analysis of the comment to which I was responding? Do you feel as though your personal finances include money that really belongs to a poor person? That specific notion - that any prosperity produced by one person is prosperity taken from someone else, is the very definition of "screwed up, baseless logic." We are not all eating from one, limited dish, here. Productivity is at the heart of our economy. The creation of a standard of living, not the divvying up of one that already exists. Some context here, please.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[bitspotter]

We need a common name for the fallacy that everyone on Slashdot thinks alike. Just because the other side has an opportunity to express their differences with other Slashdotters doesn't mean "we" should be //faulted// for being inconsistent.

News flash: groups composed of many people from all over the world don't all think alike! What a concept!

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[saltydogdesign]

You need to go back and read my post. Apparently you missed all the, you know... words.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[bitspotter]

You know, you're right.

The copyright cartel is constantly threatening to withdraw all their content if they can't force us to pay for it, taking their marbles and going home. They're always prophesying shrilly that if creators can't make livings, there will be NO content. The same applies to folks who claim that ad blockers will destroy free content on the web.

When I remember what I used to watch on TV, on movie screens, and on commercial radio, and on spam web sites though, I just can't find any sympathy for them. When they "threaten" to take all this //crap// out of my mediasphere, all I can respond with is "promise?"

I'm not that naive, though. I know better than to think that our media elites will simply abandon the airwaves if they can't collect content license fees. Political advertising alone is far too valuable, and the fact that they're prompting government to subsidize their transition costs by spending a bil and a half on TELEVISIONS is evidence.

I can't get health care, but Big Brother will buy me a telescreen? WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THIS COUNTRY?

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[bheading]

And how did we manage, despite painful blows to the country's economy (oil delivery shocks from Katrina, etc) have more economic growth and lower unemployment than, say, more socialist-minded places like France or Germany? By reducing the tax burden on the people that take their money and invest it the businesses that hire people and grow the economy.

Your "argument" is misinformed, ignorant, and frankly boring crap. You could start by look at your budget deficit.

Then you could take a look at your taxation levels. The idea that the USA is some sort of tax haven for people is nonsense. The USA taxes it's citizens pretty heavily - the amount of tax is probably not much different from France or Germany. In many places you'll pay taxes to three of four different authorities (federal, state, city tax .. is there county tax in some jurisdictions?). The problem that I think you have with France and Germany is probably the way they spend their money on silly socialist things such as being able to get a heart bypass operation or cancer treatment without being hauled in front of a bankruptcy court, or outdated mumbo-jumbo pinko communist claptrap such as ensuring that a reasonable poverty line is maintained so that people do not become destitute when they are between jobs in a cyclical economy. Instead, the USA spends it's tax money on it's military budget and invading foreign countries. That's their prerogative - you think that the longterm welfare of your people is best funded by spending $120bn on bringing democracy to a middle east sand dune, that is your business - but a lot of people in Europe think it is best served by ensuring that they have the means to acquire education, decent healthcare and living standards that allow them to lead happy and productive lives. I think a lot of people in the USA feel the same way, BTW, but W calls them traitors and ignores them. Fact of life I guess.

Don't take this personally, I'm not anti-USA, it's a great country in many ways. You just have to look at the profile of public spending and taxation in these countries and try to be more objective about it.

Secondly, while I agree that taxing the crap out of rich people just because they're rich is destructive, I do not agree with the "throw more money at the rich people so that they can pay more people to scrub their bathroom floors with toothbrushes" argument. Yes, entrepreneurship must be encouraged, risk-taking must be rewarded, but there is no evidence that your trickle-down economics argument truly works. The state has a role to play - not an overbearing role but a role nonetheless - in ensuring that people lead productive lives. Societies which recognize that there is a time for wealth acquisition as well as a time for leisure and relaxation are just as likely to be happy and successful.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think you are understanding the sarcasm of that comment. Read it again:

Yes, the very same federal government that is cutting back on college loans and food stamps will soon be issuing TV vouchers

I think the hidden sarcasm is that obviously the federal government has some misguided priorities. Cut back on education and health, promote couch-potatoism. Seems a little backwards, don't you think?

I say screw TV vouchers and force the fat and lazy Home Shopping Network worshippers get a little fresh air and exercise.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[onrop]

It seems fairly clear that taking an increasing percentage as your earnings go up is fairer (the more benefit you get from the system, the more you pay to support the system).

This seems to me to be contradictory....First, you say taxing more as you make more is "fairer". However, then you parenthetically say that you should be taxed more the more you benefit from the system....which would imply that those getting their food/gas/electricity/cable TV/water bills paid for by Uncle Sam (thereby getting benefit from the system) should pay more taxes.

Also, if you look at most flat tax proposals, they aren't truly flat taxes at all! Sure, there is a base-line percentage that everyone pays (say 10% as from your example), but there is also almost always a standard COL deduction or credit (say, $4500). So, using salaries from your example....

Person A makes $100k / year. With a $4,500 deduction, that's $9,500 paid in taxes with an Effective Tax Rate of $9.5%. With a $4,500 credit, that's $5,500 paid in taxes with an ETR of 5.5%.

Person B makes $10k. With a $4,500 deduction, that's $550 paid in taxes with an ETR of 5.5%. With a $4,500 credit, that's (at BEST) 0$ paid in taxes and an ETR of 0%. Some plans may even reward the low-earners with a "refund".

As you can see, a flat tax is usually not flat at all. Its benefit is that it makes calculating your baseline taxes MUCH easier. Then I'm sure you'd still get to have fun figuring out which other deductions and credits you qualify for!

As for your notion on taxing wealth, HORRIBLE idea, although I won't go into that since someone else covered why that's a bad idea.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[AK Marc]

Not that Clinton was necessarily good or bad. Clinton looked good economically but I bet the Republicans say it was just because he was setting them up with an overinflated balloon. Politics gets so dirty.

Clinton shut down the federal government on more than one occassion because the Republican congress wouldn't give him a balanced budget to sign. He is the only president I remember doing that. They waited until the last possible moment, and gave it to him so he'd have no choice. He called their bluff, they came back with something he would sign. He worked hard to keep spending down. He worked hard to prevent the tax cuts for the rich that Bush pushed through and was more than happy to sign.

Back to the realm of conjecture, the "crash" came after the election debacle. The uncertainty of the whole thing made everyone hold back a little. It wasn't too much unlike a run on the bank. I think the bubble would have still popped, but if the win had been a clear one, regardless of who won, it would have popped more gently. Also, had the Democrat won, I think that the consistency of leadership would have also lessened the crash. Not that anything done would have made a difference, but that the public perception is what makes the difference.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Surt]

You'd be right in your initial point if we agreed on the definition of 'benefit'. I don't consider those receiving food, etc. as receiving the benefit of our society. The ultra wealthy, whose wealth is not taken by force by the masses are receiving the largest benefit.

I can certainly agree that a flat tax makes calculation easy. Except for the exceptions. And of course figuring all the exceptions is what makes a progressive tax hard too (seriously: does having to look up your % in the tax table take you that much effort?)

So having a flat tax just to be flat is pointless: it doesn't really make things easier, and it doesn't make things fairer.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[griffjon]

One side claims "will of the people" and the other side claims "pyramid scheme". Look at the distribution of wealth and tell me which is more likely to fit the model.

That might be one of the most insightful comments on /. I've seen (OK, not always lots of competition...)

Also, paraphrasing conversation with a higher-ed administrator talking about his discussions with policy makers:

Policy Maker: We keep cutting education because they keep being able to survive -- proving that there's lots of cruft

Educator: ...ever think that it is one of the few funded categories where a very large chunk of its administration are Ph.Ds and non-MBA Masters graduates?

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[dark_requiem]

FINALLY! Someone else on /. presenting rational economic debate. And I thought I was the only one. No one seems to question the validity of the idea that the rich somehow owe the poor a free (or discounted) ride. WHY should the richest pay a massively higher percentage of taxes than the poor? Hmmm? I'm waiting...

The only justifications I've ever heard offered for such a concept relied on an assumed refutation of the validity of private property rights. The only way to justify the rich being forced to pay more is if the rich obtained their wealth at the expense of the poor. After all, one could only "owe" society a debt for one's success if it was only through the great benevolence of "society" that one was allowed to profit. One such justification is a derivative of Marx's exploitation theory. This is the warped idea that, in a natural state of affairs, all proceeds from the sale of a product are properly the wages of the workers who produced them, and therefore any profits are akin to theft from the workers. This idea (and Marxism in general) is very easy to refute. Consider: in the 'natural', or original state of things, if someone wished to bring a product or service into existence, they would make it themselves, and dispose of it as they saw fit, keeping any proceeds as their own. Marxists argue that said proceeds are 'wages', and view modern division of labor as a process whereby unproductive individuals place themselves in positions of power over this worker, and usurp his right to his wages by claiming 'profits'. This view is ludicrous. In reality, Marx failed to understand the semantics of his claims and simply reversed the logical process. Profits, by definition, are the proceeds of a transaction, minus any input costs. Wages, by definition, are an agreed-upon sum to be paid to a worker by an employer for undertaking an agreed-upon unit of work. Wages, therefore, are an input cost, and thus wages are a deduction from profits, not the other way around. Wages exist by mutual agreement between employer and worker. Without this mutual agreement, there are no wages, and there are no employees, only indivduals earning profits. When a self-employed worker reaches a point at which they desire or require assistance in their task, they are free to hire a worker. They name a price they are willing to pay, and the potential employee is free to accept or decline. This process of requiring voluntary consent is the hallmark of capitalism. At this point, our worker is now an employer. He did not exploit anyone, he did not steal from anyone, and he owes his employee only what he agreed to pay him, regardless of the proceeds from sales of the product. Another thing Marxists like to overlook is the fact that, without our capitalist employer, the employee would not have had the materials or facilities to produce his product. When Marxists claim that an employee rightfully owns the product of his labor, they forget (or conveniently overlook) the fact that the facilities to produce that product had to come from somewhere. The raw materials had to come from somewhere. Without these profit-earning capitalists, the employee would have no raw materials with which to produce the good to which he is supposedly entitled.

Even ignoring all that, one has to understand that advancements in this nation's overall economic productivity don't come from the poor. They result from reinvestment of wealth. The more you tax the rich, the less they have to reinvest to expand their business, or invest in the stock market, thereby providing more capital to other companies to expand their business. Government intervention in a free market will result in economic disarray and inefficiencies, which result in lower employment, higher prices, devalued currency, etc.

Now, we're dealing with something even more appaling: the government taking money from the wealthy to give to the poor to resolve a problem that is the creation of the government in the first place

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[SilverspurG]

there is no evidence that your trickle-down economics argument truly works

Consider a water fountain of 20 tiers. The fountain is shaped like an evergreen tree. The topmost tier is smaller than the one below it and so on to the bottom. At each tier the diameter increases rather quickly but, over the course of all 20 tiers, the height of each bowl only just more than doubles. At each tier is a small screw for adjusting how quickly the water is pulled from the bottom of that tier and fed back into the main trunk of the fountain to go back to the top. The wealth of the tier can be loosely approximated by a ratio of height to volume (capacity). The top tier, with the smallest height and smallest volume, has a higher ratio than the bottom tier with an only slightly larger height but enormously greater volume.

The government and the bankers are the caretakers of the fountain. They adjust the level of withdrawal at each tier such that three conditions are satisfied: The flow at the top of the fountain is maximized. The amount of overflow of each tier to the tier below it is minimized. The flow of water from the bottom tier to the trunk is maximized.

Give it only what it needs. Make sure the rest goes up. So, sure, trickle-down economy works but only to the point that it prevents the fountain from going dry at the bottom. The way it's being run now the fountain flow is enormous, the trickle down is enormous, but the flow out of the bottom is so rapid that the maintained volume of water in the bottom tier is hardly a drop. The wealth of the top tier is maximized and the wealth of the bottom tier is minimized... but it makes a gusher fountain.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

"sin" taxes

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[networkBoy]

Yes it sucks, but if he had insisted on keeping his salary then even more employees would have been cut. I fully expect that he would not have done it if he couldn't have afforded it without impacting his lifestyle, doesn't change that what he did was a good thing. I was meerly pointing out to the GGP who said the norm was leaches that there are people at the other side of the spectrum as well and that somewhere in the middle (not leeching, but not taking positive actions) is likely the norm.
-nB

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[kesuki]

1.5b to help people get HDTV to SDTV 'airwave tuner boxes' is an investment. think how many BN (some estimate as much as $10 BN if they do it 'in slices' over many years) the FCC will get re-licencing the VHF frequencies.

they didn't want to have to pony up 1.5 bn to do this, but they were already anticipating watching the ink dry on those license fee checks.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[wuice]

I love how you cite the fact that the government does environmental impact studies and big business does not as a shortcoming of the GOVERNMENT. The reason big business can do things more "efficiently" than the government is because they can cut all the corners government isn't allowed to and aren't held to the same standard of transparency and accountability. It looks nicer on paper and makes the company richer, but they typically don't care if they fuck up the environment, injure or kill people as a result.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[networkBoy]

Why on earth would you tie taxes to wealth?
Taxing income and consumption gets your cut of both the production and expendature of the wealth, so why tax it as well? By doing that you would remove the incentive to amass any sum of money beyond a pittance, the end result of which would be vastly increased government spending to compensate for the lack of savings by the people.

Also, what benifits specifically are tied to wealth?
-nB

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[tgibbs]

!"increasing as much as planned" != "cutting back"

Well, yes, but this isn't the really dumb part. The bandwidth auction will earn the federal government considerably more than they will spend on helping people convert (and this expenditure is necessary to make it politically feasible). So there will actually be more money to spend upon school lunches (or ill-advised foreign adventures, which seems rather more likely).

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Guppy06]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If you want a higher resolution picture, it should be upon you to pay for it, not for the rest of us to pick up the tab for you.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[cayenne8]

"I say screw the TV vouchers and force the fat and lazy Home Shopping Network worshippers get a little fresh air and exercise"

Hear hear!! I can't believe this...since when does your basic 'needs' include television? I mean, the govt. is more and more becoming a 'nanny state', but, that is usually with help for health care or food stamps. But, television? TV is NOT a necessity...it is a luxury!

If you can't spring for a new TV, which should be at a more reasonable cost by the time of the mandated switchover, you need to seriously look at your vocational choices (if you've ever made any)....and do it what it takes to get a real job to earn money to get that new TV that works!!

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[huge colin]

The gov't handing out vouchers is a separate problem. I agree that people should just pick up the cost themselves. But I conjecture that NTSC is so horrifically bad that we should consider it "broken".

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[drinkypoo]

Clearly you have digested the GP and decided that any value in information from a television set is lost due to the vast government conspiracy to spread lies via it's menacing propaganda machine.

Let's look at the reality of television in the US, where these vouchers will be distributed. There are maybe three or four shows with valuable educational content on the damn thing, and no, teletubbies doesn't count. The news is full of lies, damn lies, and statistics. Children's television is a vehicle for commercials that since barbie (a toy based on another toy based on a cartoon about a prostitute) have been targeted directly at children in order to leverage their amazing ability to annoy their parents into buying them shit.

Let's face it, the money would be better spent getting more households on the internet. At least on the 'net you have the option to seek out a source of education, or a source of news, that isn't completely full of shit.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Starker_Kull]

"LOL, I love slashdot. :-)

If we converted to digital and left the poorest of our nation out in the cold, we'd devolve into some discussion about how the evil government was depriving the weakest among us from access to a free press, possibly even with a few stats peppered in about how TV is even more important for them because of illiteracy rates, and so on, and maybe some good socialism arguments to boot.

But when we DO help them, it's, of course, a conspiracy to spread propaganda and keep everyone under their thumbs! (After all, network television is nothing more than a propaganda mouthpiece for the government!)

You guys are the best. ;-)"

"I think this attitude is hilarious coming from slashdot. I have seen it almost too many times to count. From the "technology isn't bad, it's just technology" crowd, and indictment of a communication technology. And yes, one-way is still communication. Otherwise, we should trash newspapers and "Shakespear" (sic - hmm, maybe you're right about the dumbing down...), too."

You seem to have a confusion between the concept of "Slashdot" and individual Slashdotters. If we all had exactly the same opinions on everything, there really wouldn't be much of a point to reading Slashdot, would there?

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Arandir]

But ultimately, a tax on wealth would be more moral and ethical

Why? What is immoral and unethical about wealth? Please explain.

Taxation is for the purpose of funding government, not restructuring society. If you want to punish the rich, there are more efficient means of doing so than using the tax system.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Guppy06]

"So you're seriously arguing that radio remains more pervasive than TV,"

Yes. Even if it's just a piped "easy listening" station, more people spend more time listening to broadcast radio than watching television (broadcast or otherwise). There are also more radio receivers in the United States than television receivers.

"and that existing TVs becoming obsolete impacts so few people that it is limited only to constituents of the current administration?"

No. I believe I stated that it was not a funciton of government to pay for these upgrades (or to force the upgrade to begin with), especially since not everybody is interested in upgrading. Simply because I used the word "minority" does not mean I was talking about election results.

"That would fit "pork" and your definition of impact."

I refer to it as "pork" because the money goes directly to electronics manufacturers for no other reason than because Congress mandated this switch to begin with. People would be receiving vouchers, not cash.

But on top of that, it does not benefit everybody. Believe it or not, there are people out there who pay federal taxes who also do not watch television, and they will not see the benefit of these vouchers (unless, of course, they hold stock in one of the aforementioned electronics manufacturers).

"There ARE a lot of radios out there, I could concede that point but I would argue that since they're bundled with casette players, clocks, walkmans, cd-players and stereo's that perhaps it's not something that's used anywhere near as often."

I was using radio as an example of a more pervasive broadcast medium for whom money could have been spent so long as we're spending money "for the people to get electromagnetic broadcasts." If this program were not pork, that is what the money should be spent on.

However, ultimately, I do not feel that money should be spent by the government either way. Interested viewers should be the ones to pay for the new receivers and interested broadcasters should be the ones to pay for the new channels. This is exactly where FM radio came from to begin with; there was no government mandate requiring a switch from AM to FM, and there certainly weren't government disbursments to pay for new FM equipment.

"I can concede that you do not agree with the switch from analog to digital, thus necessitating this whole mess."

I did not say that. I do not agree with a government mandated switch. If private parties are interested in switching, let them, but I'm not interested and see no reason why I should be dragged along when I, personally, will see no benefit from either the change or the vouchers.

"I can't see this as pork though, this has been 4 administrations in the making and will apparently make it to a 5th, regardless of who funds it,"

Money comes from Congress, where more incumbents retire than are voted out of office. This may be a new president, but it is not a new Congress by any stretch of the imagination.

"It's been argued a long time,"

In the public, but looking at the vote count, not in Congress.

"the electronics industry has been assured of money once it was decided upon."

My money, in a decision process in which I was not a part of nor were my views heard.

"I can't see how coca-cola formula changes are even a close parallel."

I would wager as many people, if not more people, were affected and angry about the "new Coke" as there are concerned television viewers. Protests in the streets and everything. Your argument for the government to pay for new television receivers for everybody, in spite of the fact that not everybody wants a new television receiver, was based on the "pervasiveness" of the television market (ignoring the fact that there are more taxpayers than television viewers). Demand for the old forumla of Coca-Cola was so "pervasive" in the United States that, to t

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Thuktun]

Some of that spectrum will go to first responders -- police, fire and public safety officials -- so they can better communicate with one another. Breakdowns in emergency communication slowed the response to the September 11 terrorist attacks and Hurricane Katrina. New spectrum should help.

In the same sense that more money should help, if it's applied properly and not just thrown at the problem.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Kazoo the Clown]

All hail the black and white world. Too bad that's not the kind we live in. ScentCone neatly ignores the fact that not everyone is equally equipped or positioned to "complete a solid high school and at least a real vocational education."

ScentCone's solution, rather than to make "competing a high school/vocational education" more accessible is to instead make the alternative "more unattractive." And by "accessible" I don't mean "dumbing down," I mean spending money to improve the quality and availability of the schools-- smaller class sizes, etc.. The fact is, many schools aren't working very well, yet the prevailing winds seem to think that "teachers just aren't doing their jobs, they must be lazy," is the reason, again in the simple minded black and white world that we don't actually live in. And BTW, the prevailing view of the problem and its associated "solutions" primarily just pisses off many good teachers enough to look for a better job. No doubt SentCone's view of a "good" teacher though, is one that would stick to the job anyhow, even as they are poorly paid and treated like lazy bums, because teaching is a "noble" profession. However, such an attitude may be turning teaching away from the "noble" profession and turning it into a place that only those too lazy to find better jobs are willing to suffer.

If the well-to-do aren't willing to contribute to improve the quality of education, and even the quality-of-life of the bottom rung of society, the well-to-do will ultimately also suffer when the economy nose-dives because there are so many in poverty that our support system is overtaxed-- though I guess you could make using that unattractive too, just letting the poverty stricken die in the streets rather than providing them health care. I trust I need go no further to explore the kind of effects that might have.

The idea that the poverty-stricken merely need to "tighten their belts" and "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" are simplistic stereotypical notions-- sometimes true but often not-- mostly useful when selfishly trying to escape the costs of social responsibility. Poorly educated and poor income individuals are specifically targeted by credit companies, for one example, as they are specifically vunerable to getting in over their head having been sold a bill of goods by our "consumption is king" society. But rather than questioning consumption, or even helping to educate these vulnerables instead we pass laws to make it harder to get out of such traps via bankruptcy.

Apparently, as long as consumption is going strong, it remains the moral high-ground, damn the poor, full speed ahead. They're hooked on that drug TV, force 'em to buy new digital ones. They're hooked on music too, another thing that helps them forget how poor they are. Switch formats to something cheaper to make and/or with limited life-span, and then raise the prices. Then can't pay your bills? Make it more unattractive by taking away bankruptcy options.

So what are you going to do, if (or when) the "well-to-do" have to end up spending extra tax dollars for prisons to keep the unruly poor off the streets? Is that really how you'd rather spend your money?

--Sync

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[name773]

this is probably important to the government for one reason or another. the 70 million who can't watch tv will be no longer pacified by the inaction involved in watching tv and the content itself, but peeved because lawmakers just made their "free" (ad supported and a waste of time) entertainment obsolete. i annoyed with lawmakers for other reasons, but c'est la vie.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[PhysicsCoach]

This is the right idea. Using the IRS numbers for 2003, the top 1% of wage earners pay ~35% and the top 50% pay ~95% of all taxes. POOR PEOPLE DON'T PAY TAXES. I've taught high school, worked briefly for a major financial company, done the 70 hours a work week, and tired of all the whining by liberal people who think they can spend other people's money. Poor people may pay a higher % of their income in taxes, HOWEVER, rich people pay a more total monetary amount. Don't forget, poor households get substantial benifits such as welfare,(which i'm paying, they are not), tuition assistance,(which i'm paying, they are not), earned income tax credit (a bonus for babymaking), and so on. I grew up technically in poverty and still can make it like most here in the U.S. Who works minimum wage jobs? Teenagers. If anyone thinks a job is too 'beneath' them that's their fault. Overall a lack of accountability for themselves. It's not as if we as citizens can get a buy out from SS (which would be a major boost to the economy) since it's a welfare program and as such will never go away. If rich people didn't spend money there would not be jobs. There is a creation of a 'value for value' transaction which is the basis of ecomonics here in the U.S. (minus taxes, the so called 'trade deficit', and wage/price controls). Until you financially support your entire life with what you make I don't see how you can be called a 'productive' member of society. If someone wants to be a bum, that's cool, just trying bumming off the people who have money instead of whining or demanding it, saying it's 'unfair'. That's B.S. "Get a life!" Shatner, SNL "Get a G*D D*MNED job, AL." Patrick Bateman, American Psycho

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Anonymous Coward]

Then WHY are you voting Democrat when THEY ARE SAYING UP FRONT THEY WANT TO RAISE TAXES.

You people bitch about the Reublicans who LOWER the taxes and praise the Decocrats who RAISE the taxes.

Give me a clue as to why in the hell you idiots think and vote this way!?

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Anonymous Coward]

oh ffs, the tech works - it may not be pretty, it may not be perfect, *but it does the job* i.e. transmits news and entertainment (?) to people all over the place. If people want to get prettier colored moving things in their homes, good luck to them, but they can pay for it themselves. And don't get me started on the enviromental idiocy of *actively encouraging* people to throw out more crap just so they can buy new crap that does pretty much the same job as the old crap now rotting in the nearby landfill.

mutter grumble...

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[idsofmarch]

I think you're conflating the richest 10% with the middle-class. There is a great range, but good tax law would protect the middle-class while charging the poor the least. The tax law would recognize that the rich can afford to avoid taxes when the poor and middle-class often cannot. Tax cuts are good, tax cuts on capital gains, tax cuts on inheritance, etc. do not help the middle-class nor the poor. Don't be confused, there are classes in America, and the most powerful one is often the most silent. The middle-class.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[IIH]

Otherwise, we should trash newspapers and "Shakespear" (sic - hmm, maybe you're right about the dumbing down...), too.

Before you make claims like that:
a) It's wise to check first - Shakespeare's name has been spelt several different ways
b) Be forgiving of typos.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[sparty]

The solution to poverty isn't penalizing productive people even more, it's in making a future of poverty unattractive enough to kids (and their parents) to make them want to actually bother to complete a solid high school and at least a real vocational education. Taking newly created income from someone who just earned it and handing it over to someone who didn't does not change the cultural ruts that keep some families explaining to their kids that sticking with entry level jobs is not a career strategy.

The solution is not just making poverty unattractive, it's making productive and non-poverty existence both attractive and plausible. If someone has a choice between a barely-above-minimum wage job flipping burgers or collecting state benefits that will keep them alive (and maybe doing some under-the-table stuff on the side), where the minimum wage job might lead to a lead-burger-flipper position in several years but will also result in reduction of state benefits and the necessity to flip burgers thirty-four hours a week, why not stay on the state benefits and buy Powerball tickets? The latter has a better apparent rate of return, especially if there are already community members busting their asses and getting nowhere fast.

The economy in the US today is not like it was even a generation ago, when expanding white-collar jobs allowed for a significant amount of mobility from the working class and lower-middle class into the middle-middle and upper-middle classes. The idea that you children will have a better standard of living and be better off financially than you were, assuming that they go to college, is no longer a given. College is more accessible, but loans are also horrendously accessible and the whole system is tilted towards pushing high school students to sign on for thousands of dollars in debt without really considering the whole equation. And, in real dollars, college graduates no longer get big salaries compared to the cost of not working for four years and putting an additional chunk of change into education for each of those four years.

Now, if the upward mobility of the lower-middle / upper-working class has slowed down (or ceased), what happens to the layer of people trapped one rung lower on the socioeconomic ladder? Add to this the lesser chance of a college education due to cultural and economic issues, and you have a situation where it is necessary to provide assistance to make the path to improvement seem plausible and reasonable, rather than something for the edge cases of extreme book smarts or excessive sporting talent.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[aeoo]

This just means the level of ethics has to rise. It doesn't indicate that the funding should be cut back. Two wrongs don't make a right and all...

I can understand a cut back if an equivalent or demonstrably and provably (empirically) no-bs, no-nonsense better solution is put into place.

The total wealth and the mental prowess of our people is more than enough to vanquish poverty forever. That we don't do it is 99% a fault of our political system (and not, mind you, the fault of the disenfranchised voters, who hardly care anymore, as they see that their votes do NOT matter anymore).

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Anonymous Coward]

In my opinion, the more informed the general population is, the better. I beleive certain types of information should be readily accessable, and there should be multiple ways of divulging this information, public TV (free broadcasts) is one of those ways. This "should" allow multiple facts and view points to be expressed and corroborated, especially concerning government.

The number of ways that information trickles down to the poor seems to be decreasing all the time. Do you really want these people to rely solely on word of mouth? Civil unrest among the poor seems to be on the incline, just ask the victims of Katrina. In the end poor is poor no matter what the cause (laziness, bad luck, whatever); but if poor also begins to mean disinformed, I would expect revolts to follow shortly there after. This is just another step in the wrong direction, I fear.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[ScentCone]

The solution is not just making poverty unattractive, it's making productive and non-poverty existence both attractive and plausible.

I'm not talking about making poverty unattractive. I'm talking about making the cultural inertia that gets in the way of embracing education less attractive. Plenty of people became literate, critical thinkers decades and decades ago - long before public education spent anything like the time, money or personnel resources per student that even mediocre schools do today. Why? Because there was social pressure to become functional and a direct recognition that those who could engage in the luxury of spending time reading books and academically interacting with teachers and other students would get ahead (and not dig ditches, work a farm, or live on an assembly line for a living).

It is now, in many circles, definitively uncool to pursue workable communication skills or intellectual polish in any form. That needs to change.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[DarkOx]

Thank you for having a sane plan for taxation and a good argument for it. Would you like run for president, pretty please.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is how it plays out in my mind with current trends in the next 10 years or so:

1. Public broadcasts (over free airwaves) will disappear
2. Local newpapers (cheap paper print) will die off one by one.
3. Libraries will continue to close down.
4. Public education will continue to degrade.
5. Media/Entertainment will become "a la cart" and pay as you go.

and what will the "poor" do?

1. The people you mention above will be pissed off and still buy their TV's even without the vouchers. They sure as hell won't waste their money on news or educational channels though.
2. The real poor (those that are really trying to rise above their circumstances) will just do without.

and what will that cause?

disinformation and unrest among those if the information "dark"

and what will that cause?

I dont know, but it scares the hell out of me.

On a lighter note, I had to type in "abstruse" to prove to slashdot I wasn't a bot to submit this reply. So if you don't understand my rant its not your fault.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Guppy06]

"First off, you're probably just counting income tax. All poor people, even unemployed, pay sales tax."

Unrelated. There is no federal sales tax, but the money for these vouchers comes from federal tax dollars.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[bdowne01]

So, the only president in recent history that got a surplus, a liberal, is whining and making sloppy decisions, while Bushs increase the debt and the deficit at a huge rate?

What the heck are you talking about??? You seem to think that between raising taxes and cutting programs--having a surplus in the federal government's pocket is a good thing? That's good decision making? Go ahead and give your hard-earned money away dude... so the government can buy people TV sets (it's in the budget, it's okay). WOW. I just don't get it, but that's another topic altogether.

Common man, you can't be that narrowsighted. The current Bush inherited a bad economy (tech burst), which he has single-handedly turned around. The proof is in the numbers and joblesness stats since the burst. Look 'em up on the .gov sites. Immediately Bush takes office, terrorists attack our country and we retaliate--which is I'm guessing you are basing your claims of "spend, spend, spending"--of which Clinton did absolutely NOTHING of worth about (with his SURPLUS, no less) when all the warning signs were flashing in the 90's.

Bottom line: Cutting taxes, reducing programs, and putting money back into people's pockets is the ONLY way to push this country ahead. Balancing the "budget" means nothing when it is buffetted with more of our money. I'll decide how to spend my dollars, thanks

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[executioner]

Hear hear!! I can't believe this...since when does your basic 'needs' include television? I mean, the govt. is more and more becoming a 'nanny state', but, that is usually with help for health care or food stamps. But, television? TV is NOT a necessity...it is a luxury! If you can't spring for a new TV, which should be at a more reasonable cost by the time of the mandated switchover, you need to seriously look at your vocational choices (if you've ever made any)....and do it what it takes to get a real job to earn money to get that new TV that works!!

personally when the switchover happens if i don't have a new TV i'm not going to be all that heartbroken. I will take the newfound freedom from the mostly drivel that is being produced and enjoy the fresh air and nights will be filled with games i don't want a goverment voucher to by a new TV as you say it is a LUXURY and one I can do without if i can't afford it there are other things to do with my time.. ( now mind you as a confirmed techie i would love a HDTV but at current costs not interested ) I can see my tv just fine now and see no need to upgrade anytime in the forseeable future.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[bdowne01]

1. The people you mention above will be pissed off and still buy their TV's even without the vouchers. They sure as hell won't waste their money on news or educational channels though. 2. The real poor (those that are really trying to rise above their circumstances) will just do without. and what will that cause? disinformation and unrest among those if the information "dark" and what will that cause? I dont know, but it scares the hell out of me.

I do like your approach, and I think you're right. Most "free" services of media transport will probably disappear in the coming years.

BUT, I would like to propose a different outlook than 'disinformation and unrest'...

I would propose that the reason most of the "free" media services are failing are because they are based in outright left spin and disinformation themselves... then folks like me are completely willing and compelled to "pay" for services that actually offer less spin (right or left for that matter) and more fact. For example, there's a reason I won't watch local news channels any more... I'll gladly pay for Fox News Channel--the least evil of all of them--on cable than free television's newscasts.

All in all, though... I think there'd be less disinformation among those in the "dark". Instead of Matt Lauer and Katie Couric telling the "poor" what they should know, they might actually have to figure it out for themselves. Free thinking is generally a good thing.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Qzukk]

True, people aspiring to be a burger-flipper are aiming low, however, you call these jobs "entry level" but what are they "entry" to? Even if you move up into management, there are only so many managers per burger joint. The baby boomers moving out will certainly free up a lot of headroom in the market (assuming corporate pensions, the stock market, and social security last long enough to convince them to retire) but even so, for every baby boomer retiring in the US, there's a little more than one grandchild entering the workforce and looking to get their foot in the door.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[JWW]

I was in a fairly inexpensive state college 13 years ago and it cost me way more than $ 138 / semester, more on the order of $ 1300 a semester. Sure its quite a bit more expensive now, but...

Are you sure you weren't meaning 31 years ago?

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[bdowne01]

Clinton shut down the federal government on more than one occassion because the Republican congress wouldn't give him a balanced budget to sign. He is the only president I remember doing that. They waited until the last possible moment, and gave it to him so he'd have no choice. He called their bluff, they came back with something he would sign. He worked hard to keep spending down. He worked hard to prevent the tax cuts for the rich that Bush pushed through and was more than happy to sign.

I know I'm jumping in another thread, but I can't resist when it comes to this stuff... especially when I see a liberal pattern :)

Out of the liberal presidents I've been alive for, I have to admit that I hated Clinton the least. I do think that the stuff with Monica was way overblown, and I do think he did a decent job on some things, and I think Republicans were WAY out of line bringing personal crap into his political career. But, most of that is because he wasn't a blue-butted lib, he was more left of center....

Here is a counter-weight to most of your arguments. Granted, that's a Republican site, but between the two the facts do spill out. A lot of Bush 2's spending was to replace a lot of things that Clinton got rid of. You know, like a military, that we could use to prevent religious fanatics from blowing up our stuff.

Again, I'm not sure why you keep taking the obtuse view on tax cuts, but the proper way to get things in order is to cut programs, not increase taxes. Increasing taxes only allows the government do less with more, rather than becoming more efficient, smaller, and streamlined. History proves this as well, and not just in the USA.

Tax cuts on the rich are not bad things. Rich people buy expensive stuff, which injects more money into our free economy, which helps out everyone in the end. Rich people use that money to start businesses to make more money, in that wake give people more jobs, and chances to succeed themselves.

I see where you're trying to go with your argument, but the destination just isn't there. This country works because we--you and I both work, spend, and build families in the American system. Free market, and Free choice. The Government is outside that system, not the center of it. Its sole purpose is to enable you and I to do those things with as little intervention from itself as possible, not become the barrier by introducing policies and taxes. WE are the center of the "System". It is not.

If you "get" that the way I do...i.e. that you are the person in charge, not the Feds... you're well on your way to becoming a recovering liberal, like myself. Come on in, the water is quite clear. :)

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Eccles]

And I certainly was not advocating taxing wealth. That's a monstrously stupid idea.

Yes, that would never work. There will never, ever be a property tax.

You do realize the sarcasm meter is pretty much pegged here, don't you?

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[doubledoh]

This is NOT cutting back. This is increasing spending without increasing results/profits. If employer X can get job Y done with 200 employees one year, but needs 220 employees the next year to perform the same exact job, then employer X doesn't know how to run a business. Employer X does not know how to successfully deploy economies of scale, efficiency, or technological improvements. Employer X would go out of business and bankrupt all his shareholders and leave all his employees out on the street looking for better work with an employer that actually knows how to run a business.

Unfortunately, because employer X is the government, he has a monopoly on the education market. No matter how poorly the government performs, they will will still receive funding and that funding will more than likely increase every year because there are no stockholders they are accountable for and no one is personally responsible. It's very easy for a politician that literally knows nothing about education to come up with some crackpot "plan" for education that requires lots of money...because ultimately he/she is not responsible for the results of that plan...the taxpayers are.

The best way to cure education problems is to eradicate the monopoly in the market that creates them and completely eliminate the government from the picture. The free market, every single year, has doubled the power of a computer...while reducing its pricing by half. Just imagine how well everyone's kids would be educated and how many educational options there would be if education was left to the free market. It would be cheaper, it would be better, and all the teachers, administrators and owners would be directly accountable for their actions because they depended on EARNING your money rather than knowing it would always be there no matter what.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[doubledoh]

but [businesses] typically don't care if they fuck up the environment, injure or kill people as a result.

Prove it. I think you "typically" generalize without two facts to stand on.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[patternjuggler]

If we converted to digital and left the poorest of our nation out in the cold, we'd devolve into some discussion [something contradictory to below]

But when we DO help them [something contradictory to above]



This particular posting doesn't out-and-out accuse We Slashdotters of hypocrisy, but that's the strong implication. How can anyone be so stupid to accuse a group of people of hypocrisy, especially a group claiming no political or ideological uniformity of its members?

Yes, there's probably a plausible explanation, but I don't really care. The 'you guys said one thing before and another thing later and the moderators agreed, you all are hypocrites' argument is retarded.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[evilviper]

the poorest pay little direct property tax (they tend to rent or live in low cost housing)

When you rent, you are paying property taxes indirectly, that doesn't mean they aren't paying at all.

while consuming the bulk of the benefits

Which is exactly as it is supposed to be. We don't make programs like social security for the RICH, we make them for the poor.

Are you just subtly trying to say we shouldn't have any programs for the poor?

and the highest income individuals tend to pay high direct property taxes (since they tend to live in expensive homes and own businesses)

Actually, the rich tend to find tax shelters to avoid paying the taxes they are otherwise required to.

and reap few if any of the direct benefits

Once again, they reap a lot of the INDIRECT benefits.

The only way to substantially enjoy ones wealth is to spend (i.e., consume) it - if you have $1B USD in corporate bonds and stocks and spend only $20K a year, your lifestyle is not much different from a fairly low paid worker BUT your $1B is helping create and sustain jobs.

You get a tremendous benefit out of having money, period.

The rich would also be a much, much larger boon to the economy if they spent their money, rather than locking it up in stocks or bonds, period.

Your whole argument is based upon a buch of these half-facts, misdirection, a few blatant lies, etc.

While neither extreme is probably healthy, it seems to be ridiculous to tax Frugal more heavily than HighRoller.

It would be ridiculous, but that isn't the situation. Our current tax is based on income and, to a lesser extent, sales, not wealth. You are proposing a flat tax which is very hard on the poor and very, very easy on the rich, on the grounds of some made-up tax code that does not exist in the real world.

A consumption tax on all goods and services, with a "per person" rebate (or voucher/credit) of some baseline amount seems to be the best thing for "progressive fairness" in taxation.

Not even remotely true. The voucher only helps for the poorest of the poor, and those that don't qualify get royally screwed.

The less you make, the higher percentage of your income will be spent. So someone like Bill Gates will be paying barely any tax relative to his income, while someone middle-class will be paying astronomical taxes, relative to his income.

"Rich" people will end up paying a lot of taxes

Bullshit, see above.

there's not much else that can happen.

Bullshit, see above.

I have to say, I'm getting really quite tired of this flat tax astroturfing on /.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[doubledoh]

80 years ago people were expected to read Shakespear in the 4th grade, now we (MAYBE) get into it by high school. We've been dumbed down folks, and if you don't think TV played a large part in that, well, you watch too much TV...

We have been dumbed down because the federal government controls education. The government, in fact, has a monopoly on education. When monopolies occur, prices go up and quality wanes. TV has little to do with it because kids are still forced by the federal government to attend schools 8 hours a day. It just so happens that those 8 hours are terribly useless. If anything is "sickening" it is that you don't realize that government is what ruins everything it touches, including college, healthcare, radio bandwidth and Shakespeare.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Surt]

It is taxing the poor, those who do not benefit at all, or who least benefit from our society that is immoral. There is no need to punish the rich, it is merely more moral and ethical for those who benefit most from our society to bear the burden of maintaining it.

Consider that slavery is the ultimate way in which one man can exploit the labors of another for his own benefit. Now try to understand that most people who can use a computer well enough to post to slashdot are so far from poor that it may be difficult to understand just how close to slavery the current condition of the poor is. The wealth of the rich is built on the backs and the effort of the poor through highly immoral exploitation. That the poor have agreed to be exploited in exchange for enough food to live (mostly, in this country) and shelter doesn't change the fact of exploitation, nor the wrongness of it.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[doubledoh]

While I was still working there, I calculated that the total value of his annual compensation was more than 1000 times the value of mine. He could spend an amount equal to my annual salary with the same ease that I could take my wife out to dinner at a fancy restaurant.

He's also probably about 1000 times more valuable than you in that he, through his leadership and management skills is capable of earning 1000 times more money for the company which still pays thousands of people annual salaries. What would you have him do, not cut the employees and see the ENTIRE company go bankrupt so that NO jobs are available for anyone?

A CEO is a CEO earning the big buck because he can see the big picture. You clearly aren't part of it.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[ScentCone]

for every baby boomer retiring in the US, there's a little more than one grandchild entering the workforce and looking to get their foot in the door

Actually, that's not true. Actual US citizens are reproducing too slowly to replace the working US population. Immigration is the only thing propping up the work force, but much of that doesn't include skilled labor. Right now, systems like Social Security are using a dozen or so working people for every retiree getting entitlements, but in a dozen or two years, it will be more like two people supporting each retiree. That's bad.

The point is that there absolutely will be the need for more skilled people, and the ability (need, really) to pay them. We're in an info/service economy now, and that's only going to be more true in the future.

you call these jobs "entry level" but what are they "entry" to?

Entry into exhibiting a work ethic, reliability, and a willingness to learn things. Just because you're paying the rent on your first shared apartment while holding down a crappy retail job doesn't mean that you can't pick up a book or take advantage of all sorts of other inexpensive training opportunities. Companies do now (and are going to do much more in the future) offer training to get people up from the entry ranks into their more demanding jobs. Just the other day I talked to a guy running a lawn service company (he has a fleet of about 20 trucks and does both residential and commercial work). He's willing to train his entry level grunts, if they exhibit a willingness to stick to it, to work up into sales and even into chemical handling supervisory/management jobs (guys that have worked with him for a while are making better than $25 an hour). He's desperate enough to start all of that for some employees by paying for remedial English classes at the local community college if that needs to be part of the recipe. You get the idea.

A long time friend of mine came here from Venezuela - she was dirt poor, with Mom and Dad cleaning hotel rooms for a living. She got a gig at McDonalds while working her way through classes. She showed enough promise to get a student loan, went to pharmacology school, got a degree, and then struck a deal with the Navy to earn a doctorate. She decided to stick with the Navy for a while, and is now a running a clinic at Bethesda Naval Medical. Next stop for her is work training people in emergency pharmacology in the private sector (disaster response, that sort of thing). So, she started with nothing, a language barrier - the works. How can that be any harder than being born in the US, speaking the language?

Yes, every place in the country is different, and not everyone's family is willing to encourage their kid to step up like that. But entry level still works to keep some cash flowing while actually working to do something a bit loftier and more rewarding.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[doubledoh]

You referred to my comment as "utter crap," but I'm really not sure you're seeing the context of my response.

I don't think he's seeing the context of reality...or truth for that matter. You can't be a "top" wage earner in America and only pay 20% in taxes. He's either lying (probable), manipulating his tax data to the IRS, or has a very different take on "top" wage earner than you or I. Now, I'm assuming that despite his protests, he really is ignoring all the other taxes (Social Security, Property, consumption, state, local etc), but if this were true, it would put his income even lower than my estimate. My guess is that he earns between 40 and 50 grand a year: http://taxes.yahoo.com/rates.html.

Nothing wrong with that, but it's only slightly above average, and certainly doesn't qualify one as a "top" earner. Maybe in Mexico, but not in the US where the median income is over 40K a year: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/a rchives/income_wealth/002484.html

In short, I call Bullshit.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[uncqual]

When you rent, you are paying property taxes indirectly, that doesn't mean they aren't paying at all.

Agreed. Just as corporate income taxes are not paid by corporations or stockholders - they are paid by consumers just like any other cost of doing business while making a suitable ROI. Corporations and landlords don't pay taxes, they just collect them.

Which is exactly as it is supposed to be. We don't make programs like social security for the RICH, we make them for the poor.

Umm... Social Security was not created just "for the poor" - indeed to this day it is not means tested directly (although, as I recall, the benefits now begin to be taxed if one has outside income above some limits) and is (generally) only provided to those who pay into it and the level of payment is related to how much was paid in by the individual recipient. Inevitably, Social Security Retirement benefits will be directly means tested - at which time it will become known as a welfare program and will eventually be reformed by workers forced to pay into it and realizing they will receive little or nothing from it.

Actually, the rich tend to find tax shelters to avoid paying the taxes they are otherwise required to.

This is true - but so do the middle class (esp. the travesty of the giant mortgage interest deduction) and some poor (who, based on my observations, barter, tax free, a larger proportion of their income than rich folks whose income is mostly traceable). For example, I see a fair amount of construction work being done "off the books" around my neighborhood (sometimes using traditional employer's equipment in off hours) for cash or barter.

Are you just subtly trying to say we shouldn't have any programs for the poor?

Nope. I didn't say that either.

Once again, they reap a lot of the INDIRECT benefits.

To the extent that the travesty of corporate welfare exists, this is true. Such corporate welfare should be ended ASAP. What other indirect benefits are you referring to?

You get a tremendous benefit out of having money, period.

Except for security of having money for a rainy day, what is this "tremendous benefit" you speak of - give some specifics. How does "Mr. Frugal" in my example benefit so "tremendously"?

The rich would also be a much, much larger boon to the economy if they spent their money, rather than locking it up in stocks or bonds, period.

This is of course a legitimate debate economists will have - again some balance is needed but, IMHO, will occur naturally. Your claim that money is "locked up" in "stocks and bonds" suggests that you don't know much about economics. Virtually no money is "locked up" (a few nuts put cash under their mattress, but that accounts for a tiny portion of the money supply) in stocks and bonds. Money invested in stocks and bonds is spent for capital and operating expenses and, as such, creates and sustains jobs.

Your whole argument is based upon a buch [sic] of these half-facts, misdirection, a few blatant lies, etc.

And why didn't you point these out and categorize them. For example, which are "blatant lies", which are "etc."?

Not even remotely true. The voucher only helps for the poorest of the poor, and those that don't qualify get royally screwed.

That assumes that the amount of the vouchers is not sufficient to cover the consumption taxes of the (less than poorest of the) poor and lower-middle income. In reality, it would likely be larger than the tax on "minimum requirements" (i.e., it may end up being a form of subsidy).

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[doubledoh]

Among the many people I know who are arguably upper-middle-class (I'm not one of them), none of them were "born wealthy."

I wish I had time to pick your goofy argument apart piece by piece, but since I work for a living, I'll just take this one point and make a point of my own using your screwed up, baseless logic: Among the many birds I have seen out my kitchen window, none of them were being eaten by cats. Therefore, predation does not exist.

You call this a point? Aside from being a false analogy and the apotheosis of baseless logic, it ALSO only serves to SUPPORT the very point you are trying so desperately to undermine. LOL. You see, your conclusion is wrong, but the fact is, MOST birds are not in fact victims of hungry cats. Most birds die of "old age". The odd cat that catches a bird is in fact the odd cat. Still want to use your analogy? Ok, well, most upper-middle class people were not born wealthy. In fact, most billionaires are entirely self-made. Here are some actaul FACTS supporting the FACT that most wealthy people are self-made (maybe you can use them to improve your infalliable "logic" skills): http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/2005/03/10/cz_l k_lg_0310commentary_bill05.html

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[AK Marc]

You can't be a "top" wage earner in America and only pay 20% in taxes. He's either lying (probable), manipulating his tax data to the IRS, or has a very different take on "top" wage earner than you or I.

Just because you are stupid doesn't make me a liar. Perhaps you should try to run the numbers. I max out a 401(k), which helps. I live in the only state with no income or sales tax (though when I lived in a state with one of the highest sales tax rates, it only matters a couple percentage points). When you get up high enough, the social security stops collecting from you. It's great having all those regressive taxes to protect the higher wage earners. My home isn't the most I could afford, so my property tax isn't that bad. Oh, and despite the liars that claim I pay my employer's share of my payroll tax, I didn't include that, so you'd have to remove that if you counted that as a tax that you pay, as your employer writes the check and you never see it. My federal income tax is less than 10%. Yes, that's right, with an income just barely in the top 20% in this country, I owe about 10% of my income in federal income tax. Some medical bills, other deductions, and such, and the taxes shrink.

Don't hate me because your math is wrong. How much do you think someone earning in the top 20% pays? Have you ever done the numbers? Did you do them only in worst-case, or did you find real numbers and look at the them? I would guess that someone at my income level who doesn't toss $15k in his 401(k) and have deductable housing, medical, and other expenses would end up paying more than 10% to Uncle Sam. But that doesn't mean that I don't pay all of 10% of my income as Federal Income Tax. Run the numbers, post them here, and I'll let you know where you went wrong.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[AK Marc]

You seem to think that between raising taxes and cutting programs--having a surplus in the federal government's pocket is a good thing? That's good decision making?

When the only other choice we have been given is a party that cuts taxes and increases spending, growing the deficit and debt at a huge and unsustainable rate, yes. That is very much a good thing.

Balancing the "budget" means nothing when it is buffetted with more of our money. I'll decide how to spend my dollars, thanks

But the money they are borrowing is a debt on *your* head. You hate for them to balance the budget because it might come with a tough decision, but borrowing money on your behalf is just fine? You really have bought into the live-beyond-your-means consumerism. They are spending so much of your money that they are borrowing more in your name to cover what they've already spent, and they are too irresponsible to only spend what they earn.

Personally, I'd like to see them pay off the debt, even if it means that a hard choice or two will have to be made now. If the debt was gone, then my taxes would be about 25% less. I want the tax break. Give me back the money that the Bushs and Reagan stole from my pocket in increased taxes to cover their interest payments.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[triffid_98]

Bread and Circuses anyone?

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses )

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[AK Marc]

the proper way to get things in order is to cut programs, not increase taxes.

It's too late. Reagan and the Bushs sabotaged the budget. It's saddled with huge intrest payments. Taxes need to go up to pay off the debt in some reasonable time. A person can pay off a house in 30 years, but our national debt has increased so much that everyone in the country would need to pay more than $2000 per year more just to pay it off in 30 years. And you claim that we shouldn't worry about it. When is it too much? At some point, a Republican will finally notice that 10%, 25%, 50%, 75%, or whatever of our income going to nothing other than interest on loans is too high. Where will that be? If it were paid off now, I'd be paying more than $2000 less per year in taxes to get what we have. The Republicans are taking away $2000 per year from me to pay for interest on their poor fiscal policy. How can you be outraged when some Democrat pays $2,000,000 on some health clinic, when the Republicans are responsible for paying over $300,000,000,000 per year in vaporous interest payments, increasingly to foreign banks (2 million is just 1/150000 of the debt payment).

This country works because we--you and I both work, spend, and build families in the American system. Free market, and Free choice. The Government is outside that system, not the center of it. Its sole purpose is to enable you and I to do those things with as little intervention from itself as possible, not become the barrier by introducing policies and taxes. WE are the center of the "System". It is not.

Then why do you disagree with me that I think they should cut taxes by 25% on everyone, over $1000 a year back to everyone, but eliminating the debt? Just like a spoiled little teen who ran up daddy's credit card, it is a pain in the ass to stop using it like free money and pay it off. But Uncle Sam has over-extended his credit. I don't trust the feds with my money, and even less with my credit, so they need to pay it off and cut up the plastic to not run it up again. I don't see how someone with your views is comfortable with 25% more in tax just to pay off irresponsible fiscal policies. I would have thought you wanted Uncle Sam out of your pocket. But I guess as long as the taxes are low this year, screw tomorrow, screw your kids, and screw the future. Lie at the next election. Make up stuff about "trickle down economics" (which Bush Sr. called "voodoo economics" back before the party got him on board with the borrow and spend and leave the problems for the next administration attitude, for he was preaching for voodoo economics when he ran the last two times). Sorry, but I don't believe in voodoo. It hasn't worked before, and it isn't working now. Cutting taxes and increasing spending, as the Republicans do, does not make the country's economy more healthy.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[AK Marc]

Why on earth would you tie taxes to wealth?

Because the benefits of the goverment are felt in direct proportion to the wealth of the person. Note I never called for taxes to be tied to wealth. I just asserted that the effects of government are tied to wealth.

Also, what benifits specifically are tied to wealth?

Um, all of it. The court system protects the wealthy more than the poor. The FTC's services are felt much more by the wealthy than the poor. A standing army is pretty much irrelevant to the daily lives of the poorest 20% - think about what would happen to them if Mexico invaded, took over, and nationalized everything. They'd still work a minimum wage crap job for enough to live on and no more. Sure, the flag would change, but they wouldn't have any more or less and would probably still have the same or similar job. As long as they weren't killed in the invasion, they would feel little impact. Now, compare that to the wealthy. What would Bill Gates lose if Mexico nationalized Microsoft? Feel free to check me on the numbers, but I think he has about as much wealth as the bottom 40% of Americans combined. But then, since about 0.5% of the wealth in the US is in the hands of those bottom 40%, that isn't hard. So he personally gets more of a benefit than somewhere around 100,000,000 Americans, when it comes to protection from invasion. Perhaps we should get into IP? Disney and the rich people that are major investors there having the government continually change laws to protect Mickey from the Public Domain? How about the fact that the rich form corporations, and those corporations cause major problems, and most of the people that lost billions of dollars don't see jail. Just a few manage to see the inside of a cell for billions in fraud. But heaven forbid someone steal a loaf of bread. That's evil and should be punished. I could go on, but you get my point, and more examples will not change you mind from what it is right now.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Soruk]

If you can't spring for a new TV...

Unless you also want HDTV, a new TV won't be necessary, a set-top box to convert the signal should be all that's required, and hopefully the economy of scale should mean the boxes become pretty cheap.

When digital over-the-air TV started in the UK, the boxes were very expensive (and the Pay TV operator running the show collapsed). When it was relaunched as a primarily free-to-air service the boxes started out at the £100 mark, but as boxes have come down in price (now to around £30 for a basic unit) it has been a very popular choice, and that's without any government subsidy. More details of our service are at the Freeview website.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[saltydogdesign]

My point was quite simple: anecdotal evidence is useless. I feel terrible for you that I have to spell that out, but I guess you are too dim or stoned or something.

By way of facts, which line in the Forbes article says billionaires didn't start out rich? Unless we are reading different articles, this says that most of the recent billionaires were made by virtue of "bullish world stock markets, a weak dollar and surging commodity and real estate prices." The last factor, entrepreneurialism, is given one example. That ain't saying a whole lot.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[bdowne01]

It's too late. Reagan and the Bushs sabotaged the budget. It's saddled with huge intrest payments. Taxes need to go up to pay off the debt in some reasonable time. A person can pay off a house in 30 years, but our national debt has increased so much that everyone in the country would need to pay more than $2000 per year more just to pay it off in 30 years. And you claim that we shouldn't worry about it. When is it too much? At some point, a Republican will finally notice that 10%, 25%, 50%, 75%, or whatever of our income going to nothing other than interest on loans is too high. Where will that be? If it were paid off now, I'd be paying more than $2000 less per year in taxes to get what we have. The Republicans are taking away $2000 per year from me to pay for interest on their poor fiscal policy. How can you be outraged when some Democrat pays $2,000,000 on some health clinic, when the Republicans are responsible for paying over $300,000,000,000 per year in vaporous interest payments, increasingly to foreign banks (2 million is just 1/150000 of the debt payment).

I am concerned about it. But as a righty libertarian, I look not to the government to solve the problem, but to us. The government caused the problem to begin with for pete's sake! I believe we are approaching common ground, but our solutions differ.

The reason we have such insanely high debt is because of big government. The Republicans have spent more, but it's been--in general--on the right things. A strong military, for example. I'm no Republican, but I think they "get" where the money needs to go for the most part.

Your view is that we need to increase taxes to reduce the debt. That won't happen. That extra "surplus" lying around won't go to paying off loans. Deep down you know that, because it's the government!!! Between the Republicans spending it, and the Democrats adding more and more bleeding-heart social programs, it's all for naught. That is where we are today, and what we have now will not work for tomorrow. Agreed.

The problem needs to be attacked head on, instead of treating the symptoms (a big budget) with more tax money. Instead of focusing on the debt, we need to take some responsibilty ourselves by not relying on the government to bail us out whenever we have a problem. We need WAY less government programs. WAY less. I'm talking like no Social Security, No Medicare, blow it out of the water... privatize the entire thing put it out of the federal government's hands, and back into ours. At a minimum, into the State's (it is the State's role, after all) I'm not against regulated industries in some cases--I believe it's needed to ensure quality of service in some cases--but the more money in the private sector benefits us all.

Knocking out gigantic money pits like those and keeping taxes as they are, and possibly even reducing taxes at the same time (therefore beefing up the economy, and in turn generating yet more taxes) will eliminate the debt even quicker than trying to squeeze more pennies out of us.

You have to keep in mind the Federal Government's role, as architected, was to protect the soverignty of the collective union from internal or external threats. Not to bail out social ills citizens in those states. That is why I have such a big problem with the Federal Government, Democrats, in particular; because they are the furthest piece of the government away from your locality, and they're bailing folks out with social programs?

Cut the programs, the debt will take care of itself. I think we both agree on that.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[bdowne01]

But the money they are borrowing is a debt on *your* head. You hate for them to balance the budget because it might come with a tough decision, but borrowing money on your behalf is just fine? You really have bought into the live-beyond-your-means consumerism. They are spending so much of your money that they are borrowing more in your name to cover what they've already spent, and they are too irresponsible to only spend what they earn. Personally, I'd like to see them pay off the debt, even if it means that a hard choice or two will have to be made now. If the debt was gone, then my taxes would be about 25% less. I want the tax break. Give me back the money that the Bushs and Reagan stole from my pocket in increased taxes to cover their interest payments.

Well, I touched on this in our other thread, but I absolutely do not believe in the live-beyond-your-means consumerism. That's precisely what our government does, and look how well it's treated them.

The tough decision to be made isn't milking more money out of people with higher taxes, but which programs and policies to nix. There's way more money to be made up there than eeking a few thousand more dollars out of each tax payer.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Maximum Prophet]

Hey, this is America. Instead of making it easier for the middle and poor, most Americans want to become the rich. Look at the people who play the lottery. Even the poor are more interested in becoming rich than having a better life in poverty.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[cayenne8]

"...just ask the victims of Katrina"

Ahem...I AM one of the victims of Katrina. I worked hard to get a job (contract) again...I still can't live in my apt in NOLA...and am currently still living on friends floors...trying to get a FEMA trailer.

Life is tough and inconvenient right now...but, not up to the 'revolt' level yet...

:-)

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[doubledoh]

As you can see, the link also gives you a list of the world's billionaires. You will notice that the list is comprised mostly of self-made men. Even the Waltons, which are technically heirs, are the product of being born to a self-made man. Sam Walton left HIS money to his children because HE wanted them to have it. But ignoring the waltons, the top 5 people on the list and pretty much everyone else, is there because of hard work and creativity. I think you ignored a major theme in the article on purpose. There are many NEW billionaires...but how can that be possible if the rich try to keep all the money to themselves? Oh, yeah, it's possible because anyone with enough drive and vision can become rich despite the greedy capitalist dogs trying to keep them down.

As far as your anecdotal evidence goes...I'd normally agree with you assessment of its value, but when you construct your anecdotes to "prove" your point, you should try to choose ones that are analogous. The GP's comment made no conclusions, but yours did. While you were obvioulsy attempting to be clever with your sarcastic anecdote, a false analogy is still a false analogy and certainly failed to underline your "point" that anecdotal evidence is useless. It only made you look the fool.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Anonymous Coward]

Watch "The Corporation" for proof. Basically, corporations are free (leagally) to do anything they want and it's getting worse.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[saltydogdesign]

A few points about billionaires: 215 new ones in two years. At the same time we also added about 200,000,000 people. 200,000,000 people produce a lot of wealth. Guess who amassed most of it. That's right: people who were already rich. Calling them "new" billionaires totally ignores the fact that they were $900 millionaires two years ago.

And this: "Even the Waltons, which are technically heirs, are the product of being born to a self-made man." This is just ridiculous. "Technically" heirs? They are just heirs, same as any others.

Moreover, the Forbes article is full of shit. It says Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Alsaud is a self-made man. Please, he's the goddamn nephew of the King of Saudi Arabia. Bill Gates was born to a wealthy family and had a million-dollar trust fund, but according to Forbes, he's self-made. Silvio Berlusconi a rags to riches story? I think not.

As for anecdotal evidence and my analogy: Ordinarily I wouldn't have to go into this much detail with anyone except my three-year-old daughter, but I will spell it out for you in Very Simple Terms. One looks out the window and fails to see an example of predation. Therefore one assumes predation does not exist. Analogously, one looks at one's rich friends, and sees that they are all self-made. Therefore one assumes that self-made rich people is the norm. The point is not whether the assumption is a negative or positive one, but that it is an assumption made from false evidence.

Talk about a goddamn fool.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[cwgmpls]

An increase in spending is not a cut in spending. But the article never said there was a cut in spending. The article said the government is cutting back on college loans. Which is true -- the government is cutting back the rate of increase in college loans. All the fuzzy-warm-happy programs handing money out to people are going to get more next year The fact that education and food are considered "fuzzy-warm-happy programs" speaks volumes about the current state of our country. This political nonsense has nothing to do with the switch to digital tv. The switch to digital tv is one of several current technology proposals that needs more political scrutiny, not less. Government funding priorities has everything to do with this issue. Switching to digital TV would not even be an issue if government funding priorities were not in play.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[networkBoy]

Actually most of those were fairly good examples along the lines of what I was thinking. You are right, of course, that I won't change my mind, but that doesn't detract from the discussion.

My concern with the concept of taxing wealth is as stated, it increases the total tax burden on everyone. Without the incentive to save (which taxing savings removes) people will not bank their money. Most will simply spend down to whatever level is required to not pay taxes (yes there will be some who do not, but they will be the exception). As a result of this chronic spend-down most people would not have the financial fortitude to take a large hit to their finances (medical, non-insured home damage, etc.) When these events inevitably happen the government will be expected to "bail out" the people impacted. This money has to come from somewhere (taxes). It becomes a vicious circle.
-nB

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Maxo-Texas]

$183 a semester- not $138. Yup state school in texas.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[deanj]

The increase is HIGHER than the rate of inflation; Again, this is not a cut. It's an increase.

You'd figure most people could figure that out.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[deanj]

Go read what I wrote. You didn't say a thing about grants, etc. You talked about the cost of college, then and now.

Don't ignore this point: Your school increased the cost of what it costs to go there. Period.

You can't say inflation caused that kind of price increase.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Arandir]

It is taxing the poor, those who do not benefit at all, or who least benefit from our society that is immoral.

Which is why I said to lower the tax on the poor! You could even eliminate the tax on the poor completely (by increasing the standard deduction, something else I said to do).

Let me state it again, in case I wasn't clear: Lower, or even eliminate if you wish, the taxes on the poor! ...it may be difficult to understand just how close to slavery the current condition of the poor is.

Maybe in some countries, but not in the country I live in. I spent two years of my life officially below the poverty line so I know slightly of that which I speak. I spent far longer than that wondering where my next month's rent would come from. Yet the standard of living for the poor in the US is far higher than it is for the poor most everywhere else in the world. If you want to see true poverty, and a true disparity between the rich and the poor, go a few miles south to Tijuana.

You might claim that having to work for a living makes the poor "slaves", yet why does the same not apply to the middle class, who also have to work for a living? Simply having less money does not make one a slave. Poverty is bad, but it is not slavery. Saying it is insults all those who ever were real slaves.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[gfxguy]

I agree. The Fair Tax would do just that... people would ultimately pay no taxes on the necessities of life (up to the poverty line determined by the government). That includes not paying one dime in SS or medicare, so the poor get to bring home their ENTIRE paycheck (no federal witholdings at all), AND they don't have to pay any taxes (actually they get reimbursed) for taxes up to the poverty level.

One thing we need to do to help families who have lived generation after generation in poverty is to help them accumulate wealth. How do people do that? The same way they've always done it - they need to buy a house instead of having some government sponsored housing. The next generation will inherit the appreciation on that house. They need private retirement accounts. When you die, your social security dies with you - you can't pass it on to your adult children. With a private account, your children get what's left. If you die before you're eligible for SS, nobody gets anything.

Some people out there think that conservatives are horrible cruel people who don't mind the suffering of the poor... that's not true at all, we see better ways of taking families out of poverty, tried and true ways. People complain because the system wouldn't work fast enough, so we end up doing nothing - or worse, subsidizing poverty.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[gfxguy]

That's ridicules... if you're going to tax property then that's one thing, but define "wealth"? Do we really need the government talking inventory of all of our possesions (it's bad enough they have to know our income - since when is it their business?). Do you want tax compliance to be so complicated that for every piece of jewelry in your house, every toaster, TV set, and pair of socks, you have to calculate it's value and then depreciation? And then every bank account, checking account, retirement account... I heard the other day the average person spends 57 hours a year on tax compliance NOW. That either means spending a great deal of time, a great deal of money for an accountant, or (likely) some of both. You want to triple or quadruple that? You want another 20% off our GDP because of the cost of tax compliance?

And if you think that's ridicules and that's not what you meant, then the rich will be "hiding" their wealth in expensive jewelry and silk socks as opposed to the "poor" people who have to make do with costume jewelry and walmart brand socks.

Hey! That's not fair! He's got silk underwear and I have plain old cotton! He should be paying more in taxes!

Now, if you want to really be fair with a system that taxes wealth, the Fair Tax will do it. When you buy those silk socks you will end up paying more taxes. And that poor guy that doesn't even make enough money to be over the poverty line? The rebates he recieves makes sure that he not only pays NO taxes at all, but if he makes less than the poverty level he'll be getting MORE money. Poor people don't buy million dollar homes or $50k cars. There's your balance.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Surt]

So it appears you're basically in complete agreement with me. Whatever we do with taxes, the goal should be to reduce, preferably to 0, the taxes that the poor pay. How you want to go about that in tax policy, I don't really care. Taxing wealth (my original suggestion) would be one way to redistribute the tax in this way. There are lots of different ways you can accomplish this goal. Again, I don't really care by what strategy we do it, nor do I think it is likely to happen. But I do think it is a more moral and ethical position.

And having been to both the bad areas of tijuana and georgia, I can tell you there are people just as badly off here.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[gfxguy]

Holy CRAP!

...it is merely more moral and ethical for those who benefit most from our society to bear the burden of maintaining it.

In other words, from each according to their ability to each according to their need?

The wealth of the rich is built on the backs and the effort of the poor through highly immoral exploitation.

Again, I must say, HOLY CRAP! Do you really believe it's immoral for me to pay someone to work for me?

Well, you've convinced me... I won't open that small business of mine and employ people because it wouldn't be helping them, they are better off without jobs and living off the taxpayer dime because then it wouldn't be "immoral." In fact, all business should cease and desist in the name of morality. How can these business owners live with themselves, they ought to be ashamed of paying people to work for them.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[gfxguy]

Most of the "wealthy" people in this country own small businesses that they've worked hard to build and expand. Everyone that I know that owns a business simply did what others wouldn't - worked EXTREMELY hard, often with no reward or payback for months or years. These people make most of their money from their businesses, and you'd better believe they are being taxed HEAVILY on what they make.

I'm not talking about Paris Hilton, I'm talking about the guy that owns that whole food store down the street, and the one who owns the coffee shop franchise at the mall. And YES, you pay taxes on interest you earn by keeping your money in the bank, and you pay taxes on dividends, and your fortune may grow by owning stocks, but you pay taxes on them when you sell them.

But if you're really concerned about helping the poor, you should be supporting the Fair Tax. The only people I know that don't support don't really understand it.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Surt]

In other words, from each according to their ability to each according to their need?

No, not at all. From those who benefit the most, the most. That simple. And I'm not suggesting we need to 'to' anyone.

Again, I must say, HOLY CRAP! Do you really believe it's immoral for me to pay someone to work for me?

No, not at all. As long as the relationship isn't exploitative. Which you can assure by making sure that for people who do reasonably equivalent levels of work, are reasonably equivallently paid. In many businesses, the highest paid make more than 100 times that which the lowest paid makes. That's exploitation: making profit from the work of someone else.

So as long as you are giving all of your workers a fair share of the profits coming from their work, and are not giving yourself an extra large slice of the pie just for being in charge, then you are acting perfectly ethically in paying those people to work for you. And if so, I congratulate you, because you are truly a rare gem in the world.

So please, open a small business, hire people, and pay them all their fair share of the profits from their work. It would be a wonderful world to live in if more people would do so!

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Eccles]

Do we really need the government talking inventory of all of our possesions?

No, but that's as a practical issue more than a philosophical one, which was your initial objection. If it was technically possible for the gummint to accurately tax us, say, 3% of the value of our possessions every year, it might not be a bad tax system. It would be somewhat akin to insurance, where you pay more based on the value of the item being insured.

I'll agree, however, it's not practical as a general rule to tax most non-liquid assets. Generally only houses and occasionally cars, and even there, problems arise because assets can go up in assessed value but the owner may have no easy way to tap into that asset.

Really what you want in a tax system, aside from some sense of "fairness", is something that is simple to compute, and minimal in its impact on the taxpayers' actions (in terms of both time spent computing taxes, and actions take to minimize taxes). Our current system fails to match this, far too much work done computing and evading taxes.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[gfxguy]

Which is exactly what The Fair Tax will do.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[gfxguy]

That's still absurd! By your rule, if I have five people working for me, including a janitor, and my company makes 10 million dollars a year off of MY idea and MY initial hard work, then the janitor should be making "their fair share" as opposed to what a janitor is actually worth?

Define "exploitation", define what "fair share" means when I am the one who took all the risks to open my business. Who are you to say I'm exploiting my employee - by your defination I could be paying him twice as much as industry average, but I'd be exploiting him because my business happens to be highly profitable and I'm not giving him a "fair share."

People are paid what they are worth to the company. An accountant doing the same work for me as for someone else is worth $X. If he doesn't "feel" like he's getting his "fair share", then he can go somewhere else and I'll hire someone that appreciates that they're not standing on the unemployment line feeling "expoited."

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Surt]

Hey, it's not my fault you needed a janitor to make your 10 million dollars with your idea. It may be that his contribution is the least, and so he may be deserving of the smallest share. It's hard to say where exactly the line belongs, but as an arbitrary position, I think it is safe to say that if anyone is earning 10x the hourly rate of anyone else, you have an ethical problem for sure. No one's contribution is that small. So if you work 4x the hours at 10x the effectiveness, you might have someone make 40x as much as someone else. But realistically 20x is the limit because 4x the hours is pretty much impossible to really be maintaining.

I am sure you took the risks involved in starting your business. However, being a risk-taker does not excuse you from acting ethically or morally. Nor does it entitle you to become wealthy on the labor of others.

Finally, I certainly agree that people are paid what they are worth to the company, for the most part. That doesn't make it right.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[AK Marc]

But as a righty libertarian,
on the right things. A strong military, for example.

Then you are a republican more than a libertarian. A libertarian that wants to spend money (even on "good" things) is the definition of a republican. You spend money on "good" things. The democrats get in power and spend money on their "good" things, and then you have a huge bloated government. Just distrusting the government doesn't make you a libertarian, even a righty one. You have to want a smaller government, not just one that only spends trillions on your pet projects.

The two-party system has an implicit agreement that if I let you spend money on my pet projects, you will let me spend money on me pet projects. That you think yours are worthy and mine aren't doesn't affect the outcome. Having any pet projects you exempt because they are "good" makes the entire system you are claiming should work fail to work.

Why do you think a standing army is a "good" thing, but educating people that are unable to educate themselves is not a "good" thing?

Knocking out gigantic money pits like those and keeping taxes as they are, and possibly even reducing taxes at the same time (therefore beefing up the economy, and in turn generating yet more taxes) will eliminate the debt even quicker than trying to squeeze more pennies out of us.

Oh, I'm sorry. I was under the impression you were sane. However, after seeing that you want to balance the budget by abolishing SS (and SS is solvent and will be for about another 50 years or so at the worst predictions, and forever with the best predictions), which is a net gain, I know there is nothing I can say to you about this. You think that abolishing a program that takes in more than it expends makes financial sense. You are just a government hater that will harm many millions of people's lives just because you have a problem with authority. It is a good thing you call yourself a Libertarian. That's the party for nut-jobs. My beliefs are directly in line with the libertarian platform (well, I would like to take more drastic action, like temporary tax increases, in order to get the finances back in order), but the nut-jobs that associate themselves with the party keep me from ever joining or supporting them. They run on the "we like guns more than Republicans" platform around here. They are the party that proclaims that drugs should be legal, but runs righty libertarians that want a small government, except for trillions spent on the war on drugs. Either the government should get out of it or not. It is the sewer party. Those that are the leftovers and upset with the first two choices float like little turds over to the Libertarian party. They don't even change their stances or try to mimic the party. It sure sucks that they want insane things like privatization of all sidewalks, national parks, roads, lakes, and such, with no environmental controls on companies that have proven track records of polluting and killing people. If they weren't a bunch of nutjobs, they'd be able to pick up more than 0.5% of the vote.

Oh, and Voodoo Economics, as Bush called it, doesn't work. Reducing taxes has never lead to increased tax revenue. It makes less. Always. No rich person ever said "I could make another $1,000,000 this year, but since I moved into the 35% tax bracket, rather than the 28% tax bracket, I think I won't work as hard" and anyone who says they have worked less because of progressive or higher taxes is a liar just trying to boost his argument, as all the studies have shown that it simply doesn't matter. The way to increase tax revenue is to increase taxes.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[AK Marc]

My concern with the concept of taxing wealth is as stated, it increases the total tax burden on everyone.

Then you don't understand. All tax plans I've seen do not change the average burden. The sum collected from everyone is the same, whether the plan is a national sales tax (regressive), "fair tax" (a national sales tax that is less regressive), income tax, or wealth tax. The burden may shift, but the total burden is the minimum to maintain the government.

Without the incentive to save (which taxing savings removes) people will not bank their money.

Um, so? The way college financial aid is determined for college is by wealth (among other factors). You are expected to expend a percentage of your wealth on your education, regardless of your income. People don't decide to not save for college because it might affect their ability to receive financial aid. The Death Tax taxes wealth. But, it is not the tax on wealth that makes people spend money when they are old and about to die. It is that they are old and about to die. Even those with the most philanthropic itches manage to save enough to live off of (as long as their nest egg was big enough and they didn't greatly err on their expected date of death). From the few examples of taxes on wealth, I would say that the doomsaying is misplaced. Americans will be equally responsible (or irresponsible, as the case may be) with their money, whether they are taxed on income or wealth. The wealth must be somewhere. Someone has to own everything. Some people wanting to shed themselves of the wealth will only make it easier for others to hoard it. Land doesn't disappear, it just changes hands.

But, again, I do not think that wealth should be taxed. I do, however, think that the benefits of citizenship increase as wealth increases (and is mostly unrelated to income). So I do not mind when the top 10% control 60% of the wealth and pay only 40% of the taxes. I wouldn't mind if they even paid a little greater percentage of the taxes. They easily have the means, and they do get the benefits.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Qzukk]

Actual US citizens are reproducing too slowly to replace the working US population.

My mistake, I knew that we're currently reproducing above the replacement rate, but wasn't aware that the baby boomers themselves didn't make the replacement rate, and we didn't catch up. Needed more research ;)

Aside from that, the issue is that the floor of the bottom if the barrel is dropping out from under the lower class thanks to inflation. Minimum wage was last bumped (on the nation-wide level) in 1997. Since then, inflation has driven prices up roughly 20% (from http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/ InflationCalculator.asp which seems to be selling investment tips, bias possibly overstating inflation to scare people... or understating it to make their investments look better?). When I went to school, I worked a part time job full time to pay for college during the 30 weeks a year when I was in college and still have some cash for clothing and computer parts for the summer. Looking at the same public college now, the cheapest dorm room ($1200/15 week semester, still competitve with apartments unless you cram three to an economy, yet twice what i paid before they were air-conditioned), full time tuition (about $3000/semester, resident, almost twice what I paid) and a modest meal plan (10 meals a week: $1000/semester... I've forgotten what I paid) for a total of $10400 a year, working about 50 solid 40 hour weeks breaks even, assuming you manage to deduct enough of it to avoid taxes and you don't have any emergencies or unpaid leave. At the current rate of inflation, how long will it be before "burger flipper" isn't a job capable of getting a kid an education?

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[ScentCone]

At the current rate of inflation, how long will it be before "burger flipper" isn't a job capable of getting a kid an education?

Inflation (though very low right now by historical standards) is certainly a consideration. But minimum wage isn't something that most working people have to put up with much past their first summer job while they're in high school. $7 or $9 is more typical for someone that shows up reliably for even a crappy job for more than a month straight and shows any hustle whatsoever.

That being said, the real inflation culprit is cultural. When you were getting by as a student on $10k, were you armed to the teeth with a new iPod, lots of games, DVDs, $100 shoes, thousands of minutes of air time and a cell phone, etc? "Poor" students these days live like kings compared even to my own state of affairs back in the early 1980's. The expectation is that 19 year old kids should have all of the trappings of a working professional... and they spend that way, even when they can't. It's pretty ugly out there, financial rationality-wise. I think that's one of the reasons that immigrant students often do so much better... they keep their eyes on the ball better, having been raised in a more frugal environment originally.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Eccles]

I don't want to get into a big debate about this, but I forsee several problems. The main problem is that 23% is high enough to encourage a lot of tax dodging. Buy outside the country, do deals under the table, or claim lots of things as business expenses. (Eccles, Inc. needs to buy a car!) With the gov't so removed from the economy, how could it verify this sort of stuff?

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Maxo-Texas]

I reread it and my position doesn't change one iota.

By definition increasing costs over time -is- inflation. I'm not ignoring any point- you seem to be trying to redefine inflation in some wierd way.

I also paid less for apartments, food, transportation and insurance 13 years ago.

Sometimes costs rise slowly for a while and then rise rapidly. When I was going- we were getting a very good bargain- basically a week's pay for a semester of college.

Failing to increase government programs at least as fast as inflation is a cut.

If inflation is 4% and the government cuts the rate of increase from 4% to 2%, it -is- a cut in benefits.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[sumdumass]

One of the reasons for inflation is increases for cost of inflation. Eventualy if there were no increases adjusted for inflation in your pay, government loans-benifits, or other compensation, the rate of inflation would be curtailed significantly by the market. In other words, when products and services over price themselves, if nobody buys them they reduce the prices.

Coledges are the same way. I have seen them buy pieces of real estate and then ask the state for money because they cannot meet thier fiscal budget. Ohio state university, not too long ago bought a big portion of columbus ohio properties and placed them in a trust. They answered critics by saying thier charter enabled them to do this. To this day the land and buildings are still not being used. Yet they claim they needed to increase tuition a few years back. If it wasn't for government loans, tuition reimbursment or scholorships, I don't think they would have waisted this money just to increase thier costs to the student.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[gfxguy]

I've said it before... anyone who has these kinds of problems with the Fair Tax doesn't understand it. Businesses will have to pay taxes, too... the final purchase of anything will be taxed. Yes, doctors will be paying the Fair Tax on their medical supplies, and acocuntants will be paying the Fair Tax on their calculators. The taxes are already there, embedded in the price of everything you buy, so prices will not be significantly different under the Fair Tax (because the embedded taxes go away) - moreover, these businesses will have much less overhead with tax compliance and won't have to pay the government throughout the year for personnel - companies whose biggest overhead is staff will save a LOT of money - companies whose biggest expenses are machines and supplies will be paying about the same. Moreover, breaking the law is breaking the law - it won't be any more or less enforceable under the Fair Tax, but with such a simple system it also won't take as many resources to police it.

If cigarettes and TVs are cheaper in Mexico, it's only because they've ALWAYS been cheaper in Mexico, that doesn't change under the Fair Tax. They'd cost about the same here as they do now.

Do you understand there's already an embedded tax in everything you buy? It averages around 21% (more or less depending on how many layers of manufacturing - which basically means it depends on how many employees have had to work on it, all of whom are paying taxes). The Fair Tax simply changes the way that tax is collected. In doing so, it eliminates all the billions of dollars and wasted hours we spend now on tax compliance. With the rebate, it ensures a fair system for everybody (everybody gets the same rebate) while remaining "progressive" enough to make any lefty happy (you think millionaires are going to live in trailers to avoid paying taxes when the houses they would buy would be essentially the same price?)

The icing on the cake is the government no longer intrudes on your personal business, you don't have to report income, they don't snoop around your bank accounts and investments. It's not, and never was, any of their business. Unfortunately, the biggest political obstacle to the Fair Tax is not the Fair Tax itself, it's the loss of power by the government. Our government will NEVER shrink. The Fair Tax will not EVER happen. The U.S. will never be as great as it once was.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[gfxguy]

Finally, I certainly agree that people are paid what they are worth to the company, for the most part. That doesn't make it right.

And that sums up why we will never agree on this, or probably anything. People are paid what they are worth, but that's not right. People should, for some reason, be paid more than they are worth. My janitor should make more than the janitor at the company next door if my business is more profitable. Now it's immoral to pay people what they are worth. Good lord.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[sumdumass]

It isn't that your basic needs include television, It is that government regulates this television, set a standard for what channels (and the process for decoding the signal) the television can recieve. When they change this without allowing a grace for the time in wich the old style telivision are no longer sold (maybe by regulations) until the reasonable life of those television are ended before the new standard is in place, they need to make adjustments to those who bought the older televisions.

This would be exactly the same if they all the sudden said instead of cars needing to get 55 miles ot the gallon on the highway when thier sold tomarrow and by the way, all cars on the road today will need to get the same by tomarrow too. You have an investment based on what the government told you and now that investment for whatever reason has been ruined. If the government said no new television can be sold today that doesn't meet these requirments, then waited for the life of the televisions sold yesterday to expire before switching, it would be an entirly different story.

The switch is being made for monetary reasons. The facts of emergency and law enforcment agencies getting new channels to play with is secondary. Not all the spectrom is going there. The majority is going to be sold/leased for different purposes.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Eccles]

I've said it before... anyone who has these kinds of problems with the Fair Tax doesn't understand it. Businesses will have to pay taxes, too... the final purchase of anything will be taxed. Yes, doctors will be paying the Fair Tax on their medical supplies, and acocuntants will be paying the Fair Tax on their calculators.

From http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/faq-main.htm l:

"Business-to-business purchases for the production of goods and services are not taxed."

You were saying?

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[gfxguy]

You said "company car", that's an end use, a final retail purchase. So when a baker buys flour to make cakes, maybe he won't be taxed on it, but when he buys a delivery van, he will be. As I said, it's the final sale of something at the retail level.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Eccles]

The very first line, that same page: "The FairTax is a single-rate, federal retail sales tax collected only once, at the final point of purchase of new goods and services for personal consumption." (Emphasis mine.) My original quote said "for the production", not "used up in the production." I use a computer for the production of my work. (And can, under some circumstances, deduct it now.) Your concept of the fair tax doesn't seem to match this other author's.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[gfxguy]

My perception of the Fair Tax is based on the book by Neal Boortz and John Linder, and I occasionally listen to Neal Boortz and listen to his clarifications of what's taxed and what isn't. So you're right... I know that flour wouldn't be taxed to the baker (but the cake he sells with it will be), but I can't tell you for certain that his pots and pans will be taxed. Although, it is my understanding, that when he bought those pots and pans it was the final point of purchase, and that it would be taxed.

When I get home I'll take a look at the book and see.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Surt]

To clarify: I said what they are worth to the company, not what they are worth. That's the important distinction that makes it a matter of morals and ethics. And I'd hate to even get started with you on discussing how your excessively profitable business is probably exploiting leverage over your customers to overcharge them.

Lots of things work very effectively in our economy to keep the whole process going. But each of us has to make choices in life to participate in that or not. If you're living a life of luxury while your employees are stretching each paycheck to pay the rent, it should be obvious that you're doing something wrong. If it isn't I'm sorry for you. Maybe greater insight later in life will lead you down a better path.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[wuice]

Since you asked, here's a few examples off the very top of my head:

* All oil/automobile execs telling us global warming doesn't exist
* Pfizer execs burying reports that their artificial heart valves were faulty and burst in the chests of their recipients
* Exxon telling everyone their oil spill was due to a drunken tanker captain when their ship lacked the proper safety equipment to protect the oil from spilling in the case of a wreck
* The tobacco industry has buried countless reports about the health hazards of cigarettes
* Auto companies putting cars on the market they know are prone to explosion in the case of accident
* Wal-mart ignores (or gets exemptions) to local environmental laws all over the place.. not to mention how horribly they treat their employees, how they force taxpayers to pay for their health care, how they'll can you the second you get ill or pregnant, etc.
* Enron (and many others who cook the books in the same way who don't make the news) shitting on employee pensions so that the executives could make themselves richer

As long as it's cheaper to bury the evidence or fight in court than it is to make right, big companies will bury the evidence. That's one of the reasons they're big. That part is my opinion, but my opinion was based on watching how they act.. and this is the shit that DID see the light of day. That means there is a lot more that didn't.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[wuice]

If that's not good enough, look at America's history. Look at what railroad barons and mining companies put their employees through.. Not to mention the food processing industry. Not to mention.. jesus the list goes on and on.

There was a time where there were no labor laws, where employers could work children all day, every day, for little pay, or what amounted to "credit" at the company store (still for little pay)... If labor laws didn't exist, ALL of these practices would still be widespread. Some still are in spite of the laws. Some complain this is a misrepresentation of capitalism, or an example of capitalism corrupted by greed.. I simply see this as the ultimate goal of true, unfettered capitalism. The endgame is to have everyone else's money. If everyone is rich, your money is worth less, so the true capitalist wants to be rich and everyone else to be poor.

I am not a socialist or a capitalist. You don't have to pick one or the other extreme, no matter how many American capitalists tell you such. They tell you so at the ignorance of how the rest of the developed world operates: capitalist models with some social programs for things all of society needs, like food and health care, and the freedom to choose between them if you can afford to.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[wuice]

It IS worse now... because now big business is writing the laws, just like the olden days of this country. When you hear the word "reform," most of the time that means big business rewriting the laws of a particular field to suit them.

Examples: the medicare reform bill (gift to big pharma and insurance companies) and the bankruptcy reform bill (a handout to the credit card companies).

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Maxo-Texas]

I went back and did some research and it looks like it was about 800 at that time. My memory of 183 was probably from a few years before that when I started. I remember tuition doubling in one year at one point when the legislature adjusted the really super-low hourly rate to something more realistic.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[sjames]

An increase in spending is an increase in spending. Not spending as much as someone wants to be spent is NOT a decrease in spending.... the amount of money being spent is still an increase.

It's all a matter of semantics. An increase smaller than inflation is an increase in budget and a cut in service.

Emphasizing the latter would help people to understand why the lower middle class is slipping into the lower class, a 1% pay 'raise' with 3% inflation is effectively a pay cut.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[deanj]

Show me the data that shows inflation changed your costs from then until now for that college tuition you posted.

You can't. It's not purely inflation that did it. The school raised it's costs.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[doubledoh]

Watch "The Corporation" for proof. Basically, corporations are free (leagally) to do anything they want and it's getting worse.

I watched it. It was fantastic example of generalization and simplification, but mostly, it was a beautiful case of false causality. It's always amazing to me that people blame "corporations" for buying the government instead of blaming the government for having too much power to make it worth buying.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[doubledoh]

It IS worse now... because now big business is writing the laws, just like the olden days of this country. When you hear the word "reform," most of the time that means big business rewriting the laws of a particular field to suit them. Examples: the medicare reform bill (gift to big pharma and insurance companies) and the bankruptcy reform bill (a handout to the credit card companies).

That's so rad. You blame "big business" for buying things that are for sale instead of blaming the government for selling it. Here's a novel idea...why not reduce the government to its constitutional size so that big business has no desire to buy it? How about taking the power out of the hands of politicians so that there is no power to sell?

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[doubledoh]

Since you asked, here's a few examples off the very top of my head:
[a "few" examples of businesses taking advantage of the power politicians sell them]

It's rad that you are able to take a "few examples" and apply them to all business. I wish I could do that...but I suppose I prefer not to GENERALIZE by propping up straw men to support my feeble arguments.

All oil/automobile execs telling us global warming doesn't exist

Again, totally rad use of the word "All" and totally rad how only a few "oil/auto execs" have the final word on all matters concerning the globe instead of say, scientists and journalists. Whenever I need to know how the planet is standing, I consult oil/auto execs instead of science journals and newpapers.

I was gonna go through each of your "points" and dismantle them, but it would be too easy and anyone smart enough already knows how weak your points are...plus, I'm not in the mood. The bottom line is this: Everyone, including evil business men, will buy and abuse power if it is available to them. You cannot eliminate evil/immoral men from the world no matter how much regulation you have, but you can reduce the damage they do by eliminating government intervention and letting the free market destroy them. Trust and quality always win in the end. Everytime a company tries to pull a fast one over the public, the public turns around and sues their ass for billions of dollars. The government has never fixed a goddamned thing. The only thing the government does is support the protectionist regimes of their buddies. The free press are the ones that discover and reject corruption, not the government.

As long as it's cheaper to bury the evidence or fight in court than it is to make right, big companies will bury the evidence. That's one of the reasons they're big. That part is my opinion, but my opinion was based on watching how they act.. and this is the shit that DID see the light of day. That means there is a lot more that didn't.

So what? If you don't like or trust a company, don't buy their freaking products or services. If you think companies obscure "evidence" then don't support them! Start a website called thiscompanylies.com or something and list the supposedly obscured "evidence" for people that care enough to check. Talk to the media, to bloggers, and to your friends and let them know how you feel about this evil company. Look at the Sony rootkit fiasco. The public found out, the public wrote endlessly about it, the public sued, and Sony got owned. Companies don't get away with dishonesty in the end. In the end, companies that lie and cheat and so forth are not supported by the buying public. I know I won't buy any more sony products as a result of their business practices, and if it means enough to you, you won't either. All your "examples" of corporate corruption resulted in justice. Enron, which simply wasn't a profitable company regardless of its spurious accounting practices, failed. If Walmart really treated their employees badly, their employees wouldn't work for them. Car companies that do make faulty parts are eventually sued and most of them actually recall their cars before that happens. The tobacco industry are a bunch of assholes, but that doesn't relieve people of their personal responsibility. Breathing smoke into your lungs is clearly not a healthy practice and every damn smoker knows it. If smokers don't care enough about their health to boycott the industry that poisons them, fuck em. Exxon whatever. Who cares WHY the oil spill happened? The bottom line is Exxon paid out the ass for their mistake and I guarantee you every oil executive on the planet has thought long and hard about preventing subsequent disasters to avoid further extremely expensive lawsuits. Drug companies? Yeah, they are so evil. Forget the fact that their greed has saved millions of lives, prevented millions of diseases, and generally helped every single one of us at one time or another...they must all be evi

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[doubledoh]

If that's not good enough, look at America's history.

Ok. You must be refering to history of the most successful nation on the planet. You must be refering to the history of the nation that is home to the most inventions, medical discoveries, technological breakthroughs, and globally influencial companies and entertainment mediums. You must be refering to the fastest growing, wealthiest nation that ever existed BECAUSE of the inherant freedom all the EVIL business men had. You must be referring to the history of the country that is home to the $40K+ AVERAGE income.

Look at what railroad barons and mining companies put their employees through.. Not to mention the food processing industry. Not to mention.. jesus the list goes on and on.

Look at what? The EVIL railroad barons that OFFERED the CHOICE to work? Sorry, but the only employers in history that didn't give their employees the choice to QUIT are the slave owners. The food processing industry? I guess you're refering to the meat packing industry that didn't exactly have great health standards. SO WHAT? You don't trust the source of your freaking meat, don't buy from that source! Not sure if that meat you're buying was packaged in a sanitary enviornment? DON'T BUY IT! The CHOICE is yours. Let's get back to this "list" that "goes on and on" of yours. The truth is, your "list" is simply a list of every instance of history in which bad practices met their demise or their reformation. The government never brought about the changes...individuals and the free press brought about those changes.

There was a time where there were no labor laws, where employers could work children all day, every day, for little pay, or what amounted to "credit" at the company store (still for little pay)... If labor laws didn't exist, ALL of these practices would still be widespread.

So the F what? If you don't want your children working in a factory, then don't let them. Don't like businesses that hire other people's children? Don't buy their freaking products! Contact the media and tell everyone how much you hate business X for employing small children and so forth. If most people feel the same way as you, then the business will go out of business unless it reforms their human resources model. Since profit is the core motivation, it WILL do what the public wants if it intends to survive.

I simply see this as the ultimate goal of true, unfettered capitalism. The endgame is to have everyone else's money. If everyone is rich, your money is worth less, so the true capitalist wants to be rich and everyone else to be poor.

And this is a good example of why you should leave the thinking and policy making to those of us that abandon speculation and isntead employ reason and logic. I'm a "ture" capitalist, and I want simply to be rewarded for my ingenuity and hard work. I also want to reward people that provide valuable products and services so that they will continue to provide them.

I am not a socialist or a capitalist. You don't have to pick one or the other extreme, no matter how many American capitalists tell you such. They tell you so at the ignorance of how the rest of the developed world operates: capitalist models with some social programs for things all of society needs, like food and health care, and the freedom to choose between them if you can afford to.

Sorry pal, but you can't have your pie and eat it too. Capitalism isn't an "extreme." It is a system that works. In fact, it is the ONLY system that works. The more freedom you add to capitalism, the better it works. Free market capitalism does not exclude charity or social programs, it only excludes coercion and force. If YOU care about the poor and the sick, you are FREE to help them with YOUR money. Capitalism don't stop you...in fact, it encourages it! Capitalism IS exactly what the people want. If the people want to help the poor, then the poor will be helped voluntarily by charities and so forth. W

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[catahoula10]

" ...a set-top box to convert the signal should be all that's required, and hopefully the economy of scale should mean the boxes become pretty cheap."


Why should a handful of companies that support DTV be able to convince lawmakers that this is a necessary item for the American consumer; thereby, forcing them to buy a DTV, or, forcing them to purchase an add-on box to view television that they already can view without it?

The folks who want DTV and HDTV have every right to it. This is supose to be a "FREE MARKET" economy. What this is NOT not supose to be a "Forced Market" economy where laws can be passed to force consumers to make purchases.

Also, standard non-cable-non-wireless television is paid for by "private companies" via their advertising fees. In addition to that, "public television" is paid for by private donations.
So why should the sponsors of non-cable television, and why should the private donators to public television be forced to pay higher advertising costs and sponsor costs because public networks now have to purchase DHT equiptment?

This is such a transparent issue. The Dems's love this proposal because everyone in Europe has it. And the Republicans love it because it is "big buisness" orientated.

Whats the bottom line?
The folks that do not want DTV should not be forced to take it and they should not be forced to purchase additional electronics to use their existing televisions.

Who knows...
Next they will force people out of their homes so a new shopping centere or office building can be built!

---Oh wait... That are doing that now days too....

Why is this a problem?

[0123456]

I'd have thought this was a benefit, myself: TV wastes a vast amount of the average person's life. It's about fifteen years since I had a TV myself, and after the first few weeks you really don't miss the damn thing: anything that's actually worth watching will be out on DVD sooner or later anyway.

Re:Why is this a problem?

[Tassleman]

How do you watch DVDs without a TV you hipster fuck?

(Yes, I realize standalone DVD players and Computers would fill this gap, but your entire post is still completely retarded. Keep raging against that TV machine.)

Re:Why is this a problem?

[Surt]

How do you watch the dvd's without a display?

Re:Why is this a problem?

[SnapShot]

Yeah, don't pick on television. As you can see from Tassleman's post, television helps us develop our intellect and debating skills. We all are more informed and useful citizens and members of society thanks to TV.

Re:Why is this a problem?

[fleaboy]

Definitely with you on the TV issue. I quit watching altogether about eight years ago and all the TV I've been unable to avoid in public places IS surreal. No wonder things are so interesting.

Re:Why is this a problem?

[stickyc]

Just so we're clear, you represent less than 2% of the population of the United States and I'd guess less than .05% of people reading your post.

Re:Why is this a problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

To the people that responded to you without thinking things through...

They're talking about eliminating analog TV broadcast to all those analog TV's out there that work just fine when hooked up to the analog output of a DVD player.

Think about it. Anything you would want to watch is gonna be available on DVD soon enough. And you get to watch it on your schedule and without commercials. I fail to see where this will bring about an incentive for the masses to switch, much less major innovation in the industry. Sure, there will be a vast number of people who switch, but there will still be a pretty big number who don't, can't, or don't feel it's necessary in their life anymore. That's something the TV industry really can't afford, and something the radio industry knows all too well.

The only thing it will help is the domestic TV manufacturing industry (which is in a major state of hurt, according to Frontline). The Chinese will be back to square one on engineering and production, not to mention fighting an uphill battle getting D/A converters (and remember, they'll be special FCC-approved ones with all kinds of lockouts so you can't "steal" from the TV-show industry) from a country that once had export restrictions on the Playstation 2 because it was supposedly capable of being used for weapons guidance systems. It'll set their cheap-knockoff-TV industry back a good 5 years until those parts can be reverse engineered and mass produced cheaply by non-American labor.

Re:Why is this a problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey dipshit, you watse your time on the internet instead. TV's Rule homo!

Re:Why is this a problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

They sell portable DVD players for kids these days. And all us Slashbots just watch pirated AVIs on our computer monitors anyway.

My question is: will the government voucher cover upgrading my TV Tuner PCI card to one that can handle a digital TV signal, and will the government also be ensuring that drivers are available for said card so that I can actually use it with Linux as I can with my current card?

Re:Why is this a problem?

[smbarbour]

I agree. I have a number of televisions (and none of them "digital"). Where I live (about 60 miles south of Chicago), I cannot receive OTA signals. Additionally, there is only one cable provider, Comcast, who thinks it is okay to charge $70+ per month for absolute garbage.
 
My televisions serve two purposes: Watching DVDs and playing games.

Re:Why is this a problem?

[MC68000]

Where have I seen you before?
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28694

Re:Why is this a problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, chew on this : 70 million OLD tv's full of mercury and pcb-methyl-broma-crapola are now
obselete and will be heading for a landfill and underground water table near you.

This is a massive infrastructure change. That has costs beyond what you pay at BestBuy.
And who benefits? The consumer, or the corporation? Think about it.

Why is this a problem?

Re:Why is this a problem?

[operagost]

Weaned yourself off the glass teat?

Re:Why is this a problem?

[Dr. Evil]

You're right:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28694

Re:Why is this a problem?

[pkulak]

"anything that's actually worth watching will be out on DVD sooner or later anyway."

Yea, but after you're done staring at the box and looking at your reflection in the disk, you may break down and buy some kind of monitor to watch it on.

Re:Why is this a problem?

[Crilen007]

I have a TV but no cable. I hook my computer to it for a movie now and then. TV is so useless with the internet around.

Re:Why is this a problem?

[ndansmith]

. . . you really don't miss the damn thing: anything that's actually worth watching will be out on DVD sooner or later anyway.

Or you can use a good tv torrent site and watch the programs without commercials the night they air (possible even before broadcast time if you live on the west coast). I really do not think that all the effort to switch to a new sort of television is worth it. The computer is becoming the wholistic entertainment center for the household: Music, games, movies, now television. Someday soon a tv that is just a tv will be like a cellphone that has no camera: extinct. So I think the government should not pony the $1.5B, since media-over-IP is the wave of the future anyhow.

Oh, and for any **AA lawyers who are reading this, I don't actually use tv torrents. I swear!

Re:Why is this a problem?

[metamatic]

Are you also proud of not reading books? They waste a vast amount of many people's lives, 90% of them are crap, and after a few weeks you don't miss them.

Re:Why is this a problem?

[LordSnooty]

Heheh, that page reveals that once, the ideal nuclear family contained 2.4 children. Now it contains 2.4 TVs.

Re:Why is this a problem?

[TomRitchford]

Just so we're clear, I don't (and have never) owned a TV, putting me at odds with 98% of the population. I don't think it's a coincidence that I earn more than 98% of the population, and (I can't prove statistically but am morally sure) have more fun than 98% of the population (I certainly have had more beautiful, brilliant girlfriends than 98% of the population).

Sometimes, it pays not to stay with the common herd.

BTW, I'd think there would be MORE people without televisions on /., not less. People who don't have TV's tend to be better educated and more intelligent, in my experience.

Re:Why is this a problem?

[toleraen]

Care to explain how the CATV input on your TV Tuner PCI card is different from the CATV input on a regular TV? The digital to analog conversion happens before it hits the CATV input.

Re:Why is this a problem?

[ets960]

So what do you do if you want to have friends over to watch a movie or TV or something? Do you invite them into your bedroom to watch them on your 17" monitor?

I have done this, but I'd much rather watch it on a large TV in a room with a couch.

Re:Why is this a problem?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

I don't think it's a coincidence that I earn more than 98% of the population, and (I can't prove statistically but am morally sure)

What the hell does it mean to be morally sure that you earn more than 98% of the population? That's statistice, not morality.

Re:Why is this a problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

so then if you dont have a tv why are you replying?

maybe you have different tastes as to what is worthwhile than other people.

i know you have a lot of free time, and this desire to let people know you dont watch tv. but since you are wasting your time as it is, you might as well go and watch tv.

Re:Why is this a problem?

[jeffgeno]

Just so we're clear, I don't (and have never) owned a TV, putting me at odds with 98% of the population. I don't think it's a coincidence that I earn more than 98% of the population, and (I can't prove statistically but am morally sure) have more fun than 98% of the population (I certainly have had more beautiful, brilliant girlfriends than 98% of the population).

And apparently you can suck your own dick.

Re:Why is this a problem?

[greenegg77]

anything that's actually worth watching will be out on DVD sooner or later anyway.

You know, you're right. I just finished watching Superbowl XX on DVD, and I never thought the Bears would win! I can't wait for the next season to come out on DVD - I want to see them whoop up again!

Re:Why is this a problem?

[TomRitchford]

Your reading comprehension is in error. I blame television.

Look at the whole sentence: I don't think it's a coincidence that I earn more than 98% of the population, and (I can't prove statistically but am morally sure) have more fun than 98% of the population...

The first clause points out that I earn more than 98% of the population, which something I can prove statistically. The second clause points out that I believe that that I have more fun than 98% of the population, and that this is something that I canNOT prove statistically! While the comma isn't strictly necessary, it does further serve to separate the two clauses.

(I'd have been more polite, had you been less rude.)

Re:Why is this a problem?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

The second clause points out that I believe that that I have more fun than 98% of the population, and that this is something that I canNOT prove statistically! While the comma isn't strictly necessary, it does further serve to separate the two clauses.

I'm still having a hard time getting my head around this morally sure thing, even in the context of 'more fun'. Usually, when I have fun, it isn't very moral.

Re:Why is this a problem?

[TomRitchford]

Very rude. I blame television.

But seriously -- my point is that making fun of people because they don't have a television isn't going to make you look good. When I tell people that they could be far more successful and happy if they dumped their television, they often say that they believe me but they could never do it. Contemplate that...

Re:Why is this a problem?

[roscivs]

Most laptops and video cards these days have SVideo out. (That's what I use, anyway.)

Re:Why is this a problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the digital age. I am alone with my computer. All of my friends are online.

Surprise!

[macmaniac]

And this surprises anyone, that it'll be subsidized? Gotta push those non-US made new sets so everyone can be distracted by the O.C. or (insert sitcom here) rather than what's actually going on?

Oh come on now!

[geminidomino]

Uncle Sam's solution? 'Yes, the very same federal government that is cutting back on college loans and food stamps will soon be issuing TV vouchers' - $1.5 billion to help U.S. households buy new digital TV equipment."

That's not fair. Surely protecting the priceless "inter-lickual propretty" is more important than little things like eating and education. Where are your priorities? Your sense of ethics? Your campaign contributions?

Re:Oh come on now!

[Spy der Mann]

Just wait till another hurricane hits the coasts. And we never know who will be in charge of the next administration.

Re:Oh come on now!

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot to ask him why he hates America. HTH

Re:Oh come on now!

[geminidomino]

And we never know who will be in charge of the next administration.

Really, does it even matter anymore at this point?

Re:Oh come on now!

[ivan256]

You've got it all wrong. Congressional candidates spend close to $2 billion dollars every election cycle. To them, not only is $1.5billion just chump change, but if they don't do this people won't be able to see their campaign ads.

Re:Oh come on now!

[oyenstikker]

How do I get my share of the 1.5b?

Re:Oh come on now!

[mikesmind]

The Federal Government wants the uneducated masses to be content watching TV. It is the best medium they have to influence thinking on a mass scale.

"Let's keep them happy and comfortable. Let's give them Homeland Security. Look at how dangerous the world is today! You need us." -- Uncle Sam.

What happened to: "Give me liberty or give me death!" -- Patrick Henry

Re:Oh come on now!

[geminidomino]

What happened to: "Give me liberty or give me death!" -- Patrick Henry

It was replaced with "Mommy, I'm scared..." -- Joe Random American.

$1.5B is chump change...

[Anonymous Coward]

...for the government. Also, it's been shown that every time loan amounts are increased, college prices increase as well.

Re:$1.5B is chump change...

[JoeCommodore]

Also considering they are going to take in over 5 times that amount with spectrum revenue ($10B estimate) I wonder where that is going?

Re:$1.5B is chump change...

[Anonymous Coward]

"A billion here, a billion there... Pretty soon it starts to add up to some real money."

- Senator E. Dirksen (R-IL 1950-1969)

Re:$1.5B is chump change...

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you just making unfounded assertions or will you back that up with some facts? I was in college during the early 90s and I can tell you that the main cause of tuition increase then was reduced funding by the state and federal governments. Congress gave less money to universities so they made it up on the backs of the students. And my maximum student loan amount stayed the same the whole time I was in school.

Re:$1.5B is chump change...

[stinerman]

Those of us in the midwest are having trouble going to school. I recall my ECF score on the FAFSA being 0 two years ago. That is, the government, after looking at how much my family and I made, decided we couldn't afford to put any of our money towards education expenses. I literally got the best grant/loan package anyone could ever get and I still had trouble paying living expenses even though I have a roommate and we both work half time.

Whew!

[Knight Thrasher]

It's a good thing we're investing billions in Digital converter boxes that cable companies already make avaiable to customers for $2-$5 a month. Last I checked, it was a TOTAL loss sinking money into that whole Social Security thing, and that Medicare thing? Old people. Pfft. And college grants? Don't get me started, those banks are sooo losing big time since the huge cutback in student loans.

Re:Whew!

[operagost]

Just to address your first point, not everyone can afford cable in the first place. In fact, not everyone can get cable in rural areas (such as my parents in central NY).

HD?

[joe 155]

In England we're having similar problems with the digital switch-over, whilst still having to deal with miss management of the whole mess and the possibility of having to pay a lot more for TV licences... all for something which isn't worth while, we should have (like the US should) set a date at around 2015 to move straight to HDTV, by that time most TV's will be able to show it anyway... not doing so will just make another annoying switchover in the future

Re:HD?

[6*7]

And there are even places in the world where things are worse, in the Netherlands the plans were to discontinue analog broadcast per 2006-01-01 without there being a DVB-T alternative for 80% of the population, forcing people to expensive satelite equipment and monthly fees. Luckily this got postponed till 2006-04-01.

College vs. TV

[drewzhrodague]

Uh, I'd rather go to college than watch TV. Why is it that I can get help buying a digital TV, but can't get help with tuition?

Re:College vs. TV

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny? Why the heck is this marked funny?
It's scary, it's true. Come on people....

Re:College vs. TV

[lb746]

Can I ebay off my TV voucher to pay for my college?

Re:College vs. TV

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn non-American moderators.. :-)

Re:College vs. TV

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, I'd rather go to college than watch TV. Why is it that I can get help buying a digital TV, but can't get help with tuition?

You lazy liberal.

Get a part time job and go to college. I did it, graduated and nobody gave me shit for assistance. If you want it, then do it. Don't leech off the rest of us.

Re:College vs. TV

[Ironsides]

They're not helping you buy a TV. They're helping you buy a converter box that will let you watch DTV on your Analog set.

Re:College vs. TV

[game kid]

This was partly modded Funny, but I see little funny about this. I rely on financial aid for tuition. I should NOT have to relinquish that to pay for licensing fees and royalties that would diminish my freedom. That's why I got a non-HDCP-equipped, China-made monitor now, and will not pay for HDCP-equipped ones the company(ies) make(s) in the future (I got back much of its cost from my old screen and other things; money is not too much of a prob there). I've lost a lot (but not all) of faith in American tech business. Or something like that.

Re:College vs. TV

[hackstraw]

College costs about the same as a new car, but much less than a TV.

I've found that the US system for doing things has little to no provision for those that are capable, but are in temporary need vs those that are simply incapable and in chronic need.

Millions of people every year get student loans like from these guys.

Now, if your only skilled at watching TV...

Re:College vs. TV

[John Harrison]

You are on financial aid and are using the money to buy a 23 inch widescreen monitor? Well that is just great!

Re:College vs. TV

[game kid]

Don't go there. It was far cheaper than I'd expected, and (quoting myself) I got back much of its cost from my old screen and other things; money was not too much of a prob there. I was VERY lucky.

Re:College vs. TV

[Anonymous Coward]

You stupid conservative.

Nothing is sadder (or more common) than a conservative who doesn't understand economics. What did you take in college? Advanced basket weaving 101?

FYI, helping poor people go to college is worth more to our national GDP than helping buy poor people LCD televisions.

Re:College vs. TV

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent modded as insightful? Go to any state college or university in the US and your tuition is heavily subsidized by the government. And to the tune of much more than $40. Compare costs at a private school vs. a public school to get some idea how much.

Re:College vs. TV

[drinkypoo]

When I was on financial aid I used part of my pell grant to purchase a 3" 'racing' exhaust for my 1989 Nissan 240SX. My old exhaust system was coming apart and had to be replaced, and that was cheaper than the stock part.

Or in other words, shut your sanctimonious piehole.

Re:College vs. TV

[Anonymous Coward]

"Uh, I'd rather go to college than watch TV."

    We live in a democracy and sadly, you are not in the majority.

Re:College vs. TV

[drewzhrodague]

This has not been my experience. Last time I tried, I was awarded $200 in a work/study program -- that was it. I haven't seen this 'heavily subsidized' funding.

Re:College vs. TV

[drewzhrodague]

You, sir, are an asshole. part time job, right? I could almost afford only gas to drive to work.

Re:College vs. TV

[John Harrison]

I've been out of college (and employed!) for 7.5 years and even with the discounts could only justify the 21 inch model. Perhaps I'm just jealous of your lack of other obligations, but if money is tight you probably don't need that much monitor.

Re:College vs. TV

[mattwarden]

You can. In fact, I pay less than $1000 for tuition each year after grants and subsidized loans (and a couple scholarships, some of which are again partially need-based).

I'm sorry, but as someone who is "in the trenches" as far as this topic goes, I get way too much aid. I am the son of a single parent family with a sister who is also currently in college. Our total tuition charged is about $20k/year (sister goes to a branch campus that costs around $3k/year), and the total tuition we pay each year is significantly less than $2k. My mom makes about $50k/year, and I make about $20k/year. My sister also has a job.

The kneejerk "omg omg omg they're decreasing edcuation funding" reaction is getting old. If some people aren't getting the funding they need, then the system simply needs reformed to distribute things better, because I'm getting way, way more than I need. In fact, at 6 months after I graduate, when my subsidized loans start acruing interest, I will be able to pay them completely off using money I have saved during my college career because I had loans. (Thus, I am profiting off the loans, since I have this money in share certificates at ~4% interest.)

The last thing the system needs is more money thrown at it.

Re:College vs. TV

[Luscious868]

Uh, I'd rather go to college than watch TV. Why is it that I can get help buying a digital TV, but can't get help with tuition?

You can, they are called student loans. I didn't get any help from my parents when I went to college. I applied and received student loans (both from the goverment at low interest rates and from private financial institutions at slightly higher rates) in order to put myself through school.

The idea that people don't go to college because they can't afford it is a joke. If you're on your own and really want to do it cheap you can get pell grants to put you through 2 years of community college and pell grants / student loans to put you through your final 2 years at a university. If you don't mind taking on more debt or can't get pell grants you can finance an entire 4 year stint at a university through either federal student loans or loans from private financial institutions. Everyone I know who either didn't go to college or didn't make it all the way through did so by choice. The money is out there, you've just got to be motivated enough to go out and get it and be willilng to take on some debt.

Re:College vs. TV

[kabocox]

Uh, I'd rather go to college than watch TV. Why is it that I can get help buying a digital TV, but can't get help with tuition?

I went to college. Can I have a voucher for a 60 inch high def digtal LCD please?

Re:College vs. TV

[HiThere]

Well, I got several "work-study" grants, though that was several decades ago. Also, it didn't cover expenses, merely helped. In fact a combination of summer jobs, work-study jobs, and working to cut housing expenses still didn't cover expenses. It came kind of close, but not if you start including things like clothes (and I bought "cheap & sturdy" brand).

That said, some people did have more success. Some even had success as beggars. (I tried it for a day, but I've never been *that* hungry. It must take time to develop the skills needed, as I definitely don't have them.) That some people are successful at a particular course of action merely proves that it's possible to succeed in that way, it doesn't prove that it's possible for *you* to succeed in that way. Without parental support I would never have made it through college. This despite relatively high paying summer jobs, and not needing to pay room and board over the summer. OTOH, I'll grant that a University costs more than a junior college...and at a junior college I could have worked more, because the homework would have been easier. (I believe this because I took a philosophy course over one a summer. I got straight A's even though I nearly slept through the reading assignments. Nobody can possibly be more boring than Leibnitz discussing monads.)

OTOH, what I wanted to learn wasn't taught at the JC. So the university was the only choice. Now JCs have computer courses, but they didn't have them when I was in school. The university barely did (IT was split between Math [numerical analysis] and EE [logic circuits]). Well, as I said, that was decades ago, but everything I've heard makes me thing that things have gotten worse nearly every year since then.

Re:College vs. TV

[evilviper]

Why is it that I can get help buying a digital TV, but can't get help with tuition?

I sincerely doubt $40 will help much with your tuition.

Re:College vs. TV

[sjames]

Because people who want to be educated and will vote for someone who supports that are vastly outnumbered by people who want to veg. all night in front of the tube and will vote for anyone who supports that (or at least will rise up in anger to vote against anyone who takes their bread and circuses away). Further, there is a deep fear that if people CAN'T veg all night they might pass the time by learning what the crooks^w congress is up to.

its new TV day!

[Anonymous Coward]

will I also be seeing potato chip and beer vouchers to go with my new TV? anything less would be unamerican!

Are you fucking kidding me?

[Tassleman]

This is completely retarded. Why not put that money into creating cheap HD Antennas that output shitty analog to Pronged/Coax/Component so people can continue on as usual with a new antenna?

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[Threni]

Presumably because part of the point is to reduce the amount of analog stuff around so that it's harder to copy any of it. No cassette decks, VHS recorders etc - you'll have to copy stuff from iTunes, satellite etc using fully DRMed up pieces of kit. "Ah, but I'll just hang onto my old tape decks". Yeah, then you can barter using them when you lose the ability to use cash.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[limabone]

You can already pick up HD signals with your crappy rabbit ears or that monstrosity attached to your house...a generic UHF/VHF antenna will do just fine, and companies that advertise their antennas as being for HDTV are just trying to entice you into buying them.

You will NOT have to replace your antenna, what you will need to get is an external converter to turn the signals from your antenna into something your current TV can handle.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[wiggles]

MOD THIS GUY UP.
 
We just bought a nice 40" HDTV, and our old antenna pulls down Over-The-Air HD broadcasts just fine. In fact, we get better quality from OTA than we do from our Dish Network box, because the satellite box does a D to A conversion (yes, I know I need to buy the HD sat reciever and spend the extra $5/mo to fix this).

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[Steve525]

Why not put that money into creating cheap HD Antennas that output shitty analog to Pronged/Coax/Component so people can continue on as usual with a new antenna?

Uhm, because there's a lot involved with converting a HD signal to a standard pronged/coax/component signal. HD is digital, so you need a decoder (in addition to the demondulator). Currently the prices for such a box is about $200 (I think, this was a while ago). The hope is that by the time standard definition gets turned off, the boxes will be about $40, hence the $40 vouchers.

Let's do the math: 70 million TVs * $40 = $2.8 billion. So, if there are really only 70 million TV's that need converter boxes, and they can get $10 billion for the spectrum, the government stands to make a decent profit on this.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[RoverDaddy]

I think the GP was just suggesting that we build the digital-to-analog conversion into the antenna so existing TV equipment would not be obsoleted. Not very different from putting it in a set-top box.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[qodfathr]

But that's pretty much exactly what they ARE doing. The vouchers will be used help pay for the HD-to-analog converter box. Depending upon where you are located, you may be able to use your existing UHF/VHF antenna. If you are too far from the broadcast antenna, there may be value in purchasing a 'HDTV' antenna specifically designed to capture the broadcast.

I don't know why one would need (or even want) the converter box built into the antenna, as you've suggested. At a minimum, it's probably going to require power, and, last time I checked, most roofs don't have electrical outlets.

Unless you think a magical antenna, absent of electronics, can decode an MPEG2 stream.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[neomunk]

That's a pipe dream.

Until someone invents a dgital interface for humans then at some point, even if t's the last in the chain, you'll HAVE to convert the signals into analog (like, you know, colors and sounds). This step is NOT optional, and therefore there will ALWAYS be an analog outlet to get copy from.

DRM will be defeated every time until there is found a way to send an encrypted digital signal into someone's skull and decrypt it in there, and even then, somebody's gonna have a dongle poking out from behind their left ear, spewing the latest copy of 'Rocky DCLXVI' unencrypted.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[stefanlasiewski]

That is what these funds are for. These funds will be used to purchase converter boxes to convert the digital signal received from the source to an analog signal.

There is no such thing as a "HD Antenna". UHF/VHF antennas can be used to watch Digital OTA broadcasts, in theory. There's a whole other question about the quality of the signal as received by the antenna- those rabbit ears probably won't work very wekk. A weak analog signal results in a snowy picture-- it's low quality but watchable. A weak digital signal can result in a "stuttering" picture on the screen, like when you try to watch a scratched DVD. It's unwatchable.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is completely retarded. Why not put that money into creating cheap HD Antennas that output shitty analog to Pronged/Coax/Component so people can continue on as usual with a new antenna?

Because there can be many MPEG-encoded streams being broadcast at a time. In the UK we have some 40 free digital terrestial channels.

If you wanted to, you could get in all 40 channels, decode all 40 of them in real time, output them as analog signals, modulate them to thier old frequencies and shove them down coax to people's TVs. It would be possible to do. Unfortunately, it is unlikely to be cost effective, since you'd need roughly 40 times the processing resources that a single-channel decoder would call for. 40 channels * 30 frames per second * 480 lines/frame * 640 pixels per line * 16 bits per pixel = 5.9 gigabits per second is a lot of data, and would need a lot of computing power.

Also, people would have the bother of installing a new ariel. At least, it's a bother when it's on top of your house, as many are. Plugging in a box is a lot easier; no going on the roof required.

Just my $0.02,

Michael

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's an "HD antenna"? My old ass set of rabbit ears pick up HDTV just fine when plugged into an ATSC tuner. Shit, I thought this was /. where at least some very basic tech knowledge was abound, who let the retards in?

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[Glendale2x]

I can get HDTV just fine with a set of rabbit ears where I'm located. (I only used them for testing, now I use an old roof VHF/UHF antenna that was stashed away in my parent's attic.) There is no such thing as an "HD antenna".

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention that the sound either utterly cuts out, or goes to speaker-damaging static.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[josecanuc]

But an antenna is just a piece of wire (fundamentally). It can't convert anything to anything else. It captures energy from space (not limited to "outer" space) and that's it.

In fact, the "digital TV" signals that your antenna captures are analog. All RF is analog. (All signals in general are analog, though many are used to represent digital data.)

If you make an "antenna" that presents to the TV an standard analog NTSC signal, regardless of what energy is captured by the "wire", you effectively have renamed the "set top box". So what's the difference between a set top box and such an antenna?

As you said, "not very different". So why not call a spade a spade?

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[antdude]

I have a rabbit ear antenna for my HDTV tuner at home, but it is very weak compared to analog TV feeds. All stations' digital TV transponders are less than 20 miles away and mostly the same direction (NW -- I am east of L.A.). I had to buy one of those bowtie antenna (can reach 30 miles). However, one channel (KTLA 5) isn't strong for me (30%-50%).

So, people with rabbit ears antennae might have to upgrade for stronger ones.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[lgw]

DRM can still work, even with an analog gap. All you need is a watermark that survives conversion to analog, unless the signal is degraded to the point where the result "looks like a copy". Fortunately, it has proven difficult to come up with such a watermarking technology, so we're safe for now.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[LocalH]

That may be because many digital stations are not yet running at full power, compared to the analog stations. For example, last I head, the digital ABC station in this market was only broadcasting at 1kW.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[stefanlasiewski]

Everything in the universe is analog. "digital" is just a theoretical mathematical approximation ;)

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[stefanlasiewski]

may be value in purchasing a 'HDTV' antenna specifically designed to capture the broadcast.

Is there really much difference between those 'HDTV' antennas and any other analog antenna? I've been asking around on some DTV forums about this, and most folks say that most of those 'HDTV' antennas are really just a UHF antenna with better packaging and a premium price.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[qodfathr]

They are correct, but I have seen a premium antenna help ONCE for a friend who lives pretty far from any broadcast antenna. So I cannot completely rule them out, but, for most folks, I can.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[Jeremy Erwin]

What? Do you even have digital television? The sound is carried by dolby digital. The failure mode associated with dolby digital is not static, but muting. After all, there are checksums involved.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[antdude]

How can I check if they are at max and not? Someone told me only the big boys (CBS, NBC, and ABC) are at full power.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[log0]

I'm not convinced. Surely there must be something so small that if it were any smaller it wouldn't exist. Or a distance so short that to move any less than said distance would be to not move at all.

If everything in the universe was made up of matter of this theoretically minute size, spaced apart in multiples of this theoretically minute distance, then I'd say the universe is digital. Although it probably isn't binary.

Disclaimer: IANA physicist, I drink booze, and eat badly.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[log0]

He's probably not in the US. Here in Australia (Europe's probably the same) MPEG layer 2 is the default for standard definition. Ever played a corrupt MP3 or scratched [S]VCD? Same thing - horrible.

We have AC3 for HD and some SD channels and, you're right, the sound simply mutes.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[pommiekiwifruit]

Yes, I have two set top boxes. One for recording and one for watching another channel (if two good programs are on at once). One box mutes the sound on digital errors, the other (Panasonic) blasts static through the speakers.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[HiThere]

Actually, that's a bad idea. What antenna you need depends on the signal strength where you are. Different locations need different antennas. E.g., I live in a shallow valley, and I need an good antenna stuck up on a tall pole. For a digital signal, I might need a pre-amp before it ever got to the converter box, or the signal would be too weak to read.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[evilviper]

You can already pick up HD signals with your crappy rabbit ears

That's not true at all, unless you're in an INCREDIBLY strong signal area. Rabbit ears are for VHF, and ATSC is UHF. Besides requiring a different antenna, that also significantly drops the maximum range of broadcasts from 100+ miles down to approx 60 miles.

In conclusion: you don't know what you're talking about.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[Jeremy Erwin]

I'll be sure to avoid panasonic in the future, then.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[Anonymous Coward]

The choice was between panasonic and sony. No other manufacturer has a DVD recorder with hard drive and digital receiver. So I went for the less evil and less crappy company. It is very useful (like a tivo is described as I guess, but free from bills) apart from the annoyances of losing signal (and the timer not auto-starting if you are on the thumbnail navigation screen).

I still receive analog but they might shut that down in a few years.

Now if the next generation lets you record two separate channels simultaneously... but you'd never get the time to watch everything anyway.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Everything in the universe is analog. "digital" is just a theoretical mathematical approximation ;)

Depends on the scale. M-Theory provides for a minimum quantum size for the universe, where, say, a propogating photon would move from point a to b to c without ever being between a or b or c.

Fortunately, we can argue about such things with no current way to prove who's right. :)

question for /.ers

[John Harrison]

Does anyone out there have a set-top box to recieve over the air digital TV signals? A free one, not a pay service like Xoom or USDTV? I know that broadcasters as sending out digital signals but I don't know anyone that currently receives them.

Re:question for /.ers

[calibanDNS]

I do. My TV (Samsung TX-P3071WH) has a built-in ATSC tuner for tuning over the air (OTA) HD channels. I use a Zenith ZHDTV1 indoor antenna to receive my local ABC and CBS affiliates' broadcasts over the air. My cable provider (Time Warner) doesn't include the ABC HD channel in their HD package, so I picked up the antenna and my reception is great. Check out AntennaWeb for information on broadcasts in your area to see what you might be able to pick up.

Re:question for /.ers

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in central NJ and have no pay tv. I use a rooftop UHF/VHF antenna and a Samsung HD receiver. I get all the New York and Philly digital broadcasts...all of the major networks from both. It's great actually...HD NFL games etc.

Tom

Re:question for /.ers

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah i have a box (samsung sir-t451). It is set up to receive OTA even though the local cable company (Time Warner Cable) has most of the DTV channels rebroadcast in-the-clear QAM with the analog service. (TWC also has digital cable but I do not subscribe to it.)

The samsung box was about $150-$200. I bought it open-box at circuit city.

It was actually rather difficult to buy a box. The selections at the stores around town (Fry's, Best Buy, Circuit City) were not very good. My guess is that the TV manufacturers (who also happen to be the ATSC box tuner manufacturers) want to make it so that if you're going to go DTV, you should buy a new TV that has an integrated ATSC tuner. Every tuner box sold means a 'lost new TV sale opportunity'.

Re:question for /.ers

[Detritus]

I have one. It's a Samsung SIR-T451, which you can get refurbed (like new) for $150. I'm very pleased with it. I'm in a marginal signal area and the digital signal is easier to receive than the analog signal for most stations. The picture quality is excellent. I have it connected to an old NTSC color set, so it converts everything to 480i.

Re:question for /.ers

[Dante]

"Does anyone out there have a set-top box to recieve over the air digital TV signals?"

I do, I'm one of those early-early adopters. It's a Samsung and they no longer make it.

I've heard that the HUMAX Digital ATSC TV Tuner is the best out there.

I spent a fair amount of time messing with mine, and the enormous Channel Master Crossfire 3678.

Works well now.

Re:question for /.ers

[artisteeternite]

Indeed I do. I don't watch a lot of TV, mostly The Simpson's and the morning news. Living near a large city, I can get around 25 channels for free (minus the original cost of the antenna). Or I can pay $50 for a bunch more crappy channels. With how much TV I watch, it's much better going the free way. I think there won't be a problem with a lack of free television if we can get to the point where we only pay for services we want.

Re:question for /.ers

[hal2814]

Is it common to get the digital signal easier than the analog one? I live about 60 to 100 miles away from where my over-the-air boradcasts are coming from. I've been using an indoor boosted antennae (some RCA job from Wal-Mart) with moderate success. I've been eyeing something similar to the SIR-T451 but don't want to blow a wad of money and then not get any signal.

Re:question for /.ers

[ets960]

I currently own one of the samsung tuners. I am about 20 miles away from Chicago, but O'Hare is in my way. During certain times of the day I get great signal, but at other times I get no signal. I decided to pay 5 bucks a month to my cable company to get an HD box so that I don't have to deal with any of the problems.

If anybody wants to purchase a basically brand new samsung tuner, send me a message back. I believe it normally costs around 300 dollars new, 150 refurbed, and this was used for maybe 2 weeks...

Re:question for /.ers

[RemovableBait]

There are a lot of people here in the UK using this kind of setup (called Freeview) and a lot of set-top boxes from a huge variety of manufacturers. The boxes themselves are about £20-60 (depending on features) and even the most basic have a 7-day programme guide (EPG).

From the Freeview site:

"It is the new, free digital service providing over 30 free digital TV channels, over 20 digital radio stations plus a new whole world of interactive services. It's broadcast from transmitters and received via a rooftop aerial.

It works like traditional TV but because the signals are Digital you need an box to convert them (or a new Digital TV with all the technology in a box already built-in). This means more channels can be transmitted with extra features such as interactivity and widescreen pictures. "

Now, this is being marketed in the UK as a means to get the interactive services and many more channels. Nowhere on the site (that I have found) does it try to push consumers into adopting just because their sets will 'go black' in 4 years time. Surely this is the way the US needs to go? Try and get as much voluntary adoption as possible at this early stage, and not start the 'TV vouchers' talk until 2008.

Re:question for /.ers

[snooo53]

I've had a TV with an ATSC tuner for a while now, and let me tell you from experience, if you are having only moderate success receiving OTA analog broadcasts, digital will probably not work much better with your same setup. I live in a major metropolitan area and still have problems with certain channels

A lot of people tout digital as being you either get the picture perfectly or you don't, but that's simply not true in a normal real-world TV watching. Whenever you see static now, you will end up seeing digital artifacts and having the sound skip. Which I personally think is a lot more annoying than a little static.

Now that all being said, even digital OTA is AWESOME. Crystal clear pictures, extra channels, widescreen, digital sound. Spend the money and get a nice outdoor antenna and I don't think you will have any problems. Also a number of cable companies offer limited hdtv packages for $10-15/mo you may consider looking into, ours includes a few non-broadcast channels like INHD as well.

Re:question for /.ers

[Yuri33]

The cheapest solution for an external ATSC tuner is a used Motorola DSR-550, also known as the cable box issued with the now defunt VOOM service. You can get one on ebay for about $75. I own one, and it works perfectly. The only thing you need to be careful of is that the box you bid on must have already been activated and not "killed" (i.e., not active on the day VOOM when dark). You also need to make sure that the seller includes the remote. There are some universals (like a Harmony) that can control it, but I believe the setup requires the original remote. There's a FAQ all about this cheap solution @ http://www.satelliteguys.us/showthread.php?s=f5cd1 50bdce94a332dd31deb46b954b3&t=7178

Re:question for /.ers

[krouskop]

It's not exactly a set-top box, but I currently use an EyeTV 500 to record over the air HDTV to my Mac. I love it.

Re:question for /.ers

[raygundan]

I use an HD tuner card I bought used plugged into a PC made out of used parts, and a $15 antenna from radio shack. Works great, but as is always the case with network TV, there's nothing worth watching 98% of the time.

Re:question for /.ers

[Jeremy Erwin]

I have a old samsung tuner, hooked up to a widescreen lcd. I have to be pretty careful in placing the antenna, but a 720p picture and dolby digital "5.1" makes up for this minor hassle. Of course, I do live in a major market, and most stations (save the UPN) are already broadcasting at close to full power. One station even does its local news in hdtv-- a fact that does not really inspire me to watch it.

Re:question for /.ers

[babyrat]

You joking?

Seriously?

Not only do a lot of HDTVs come with an HDTV tuner (mine did and I bought it two years ago), you can buy a frickin' card for linux or if you have an HDTV without a tuner, you an buy one of these or another of the many like it.

Sheesh!

Re:question for /.ers

[TheSync]

I have used an early DTV receiver with a computer monitor. It was a bit of a challenge to pick up more than three local stations.

My new Sony LCD projection set has an over-the-air DTV tuner. When my cable went out, I grabbed a "silver sensor" style antenna and tried to see which DTV stations I could receive. I'm in an exurb, but could still pick up about 5 stations, but had to reposition the antenna several times.

On the other hand, the digital signals (including when they are hi-def) from all the local stations are present on my cable system as well, so I generally don't use the over-the-air antenna.

Re:question for /.ers

[floateyedumpi]

All TVs 36" and larger were mandated to have built-in HD tuners (known as ATSC tuners) beginning March 2005. By March, 2006, the maximum size without tuner will drop to 26", and by March, 2007, all new televisions will be required to carry the tuners. If you bought a TV recently, it likely has an ATSC tuner. If you aren't using it, you should be.

I recently set up my father in law with a cheap amplified set of rabbit ears for his new Panasonic 42" EDTV Plasma TV. He's in Las Cruces, NM, and we were easily able to pick up 5-7 digital channels from El Paso, TX, over 60 miles away! Most prime time networking is transmitted in 720p or 1080i, and even the non prime-time programming, which is simply up-converted to HD, looks clean and static free -- a remarkable improvement over traditional analog broadcasting, and analog cable quality. The broadcast HDTV is of remarkable quality (even on a widescreen EDTV display). PBS in particular has some outstanding HD programming, and typically most prime time, major sporting events (think: Olympics), and other high-rating programming is now being produced originally in HD.

He liked it so much, he's cancelling his cable, and just enjoying the pristine, over the air programming brought to you free of charge by the largesse of our fine friends at the FCC. My mother in law calls the little radioshack antenna "the satellite dish". Somehow I just can't manage to convince her that what she is watching is being beamed free over the air.

If you have a new TV, but are too cheap to get HD cable or a satellite service, check the digital transmission status of your local broadcasters, drop $40 at your local radio shack, and let the fun begin.

Re:question for /.ers

[John Harrison]

I was not joking. I've asked before at Best Buy and Circuit City and haven't gotten an answer.

Re:question for /.ers

[EnronHaliburton2004]

A computer doesn't really count as a "Set-top box". It's far more complicated and expensive then a set-top box is designed to be. (Note: I'm probably going to build a living room PC this year, with one of those cards, so I can receive OTA DTV broadcasts).

There aren't many HDTV Tuners around. I remember going to the store and shopping for an analog set-top box in the late eighties-- the boxes cost around $50. Now it's $150 for a refurbished set-top box. I feel like I'm getting ripped off.

I've asked the guys at Good Guys, Circuit City, and Best Buy-- 90% of the salespeople told me I couldn't receive DTV over the air. That's the sort of ignorance some of us are running into.

Re:question for /.ers

[bill_mcgonigle]

which you can get refurbed (like new) for $150

I'm not sure which model it was, but Circuit City this weekend had a similar unit for that price with no apparent 'refurb' sticker on it.

Of course, this was in a town with 1 OTA HD signal, so maybe they were reducing inventory.

Bread and Circus

[ThatGeek]

'Yes, the very same federal government that is cutting back on college loans and food stamps will soon be issuing TV vouchers' - $1.5 billion to help U.S. households buy new digital TV equipment."

There is a reason why the Romans didn't talk about "Bread, Circus and Higher Education". As long as people are fat and happy, you can basically do whatever you want. Large business know this. The shills they put in government know this. And we know this too.

Re:Bread and Circus

[slashname3]

And we know this too.

The trick is figuring out how to make use of the information to take adavantage of those that don't know it. :)

'Yes, the very same federal government...'

[OakDragon]

'Yes, the very same federal government that is cutting back on college loans and food stamps will soon be issuing TV vouchers'

I realize this is in an 'analysis' piece, but I would be very surprised if it were actually true. Unless by cutting back, he means cutting back in the rate of growth. I'm not even going to attempt to Google this to find meaningful figures, for (I hope) obvious reasons. Anyone know where we can see the real increases/decreases for funding of such items?

Re:'Yes, the very same federal government...'

[operagost]

Figures here. Make sure to skip the "cutting $13 billion" at the top and read the real figures at the bottom. $13 billion will be saved, is what it should say. There isn't some mythical pool of college loan money from which $13 billion will be taken.

Re:'Yes, the very same federal government...'

[Kamel Jockey]

I realize this is in an 'analysis' piece, but I would be very surprised if it were actually true. Unless by cutting back, he means cutting back in the rate of growth.

Neither is true. Anyone who tries to criticize the current administration for spending less on anything is either ill-informed or has been living in a box for the past 6 years. During George W. Bush's term in office, Federal spending has increased at a rate opposite of free fall. Its one of the things that many conservatives like myself find appalling, but we don't see the Democrats as offering any real alternatives to Bush's spending plans (all they do is whine and complain).

I hate how other (alleged) "small government" conservatives try to "argue away" this issue. I am sure that for a president to get the things he wants out of Congress he needs to give a little on the spending side, and I can completely understand that winning a war requires spending money. But Bush literally went off the deep end when he expanded Medicare to cover prescription drug costs, spent tons of money on a useless Farm Bill, and threw even more money at an ineffective Education Department.

There are a lot of conservatives out there would be more than happy with a president who was not only serious about winning the War on Terror but who was also more concerned with keeping the size of the Federal government as small as possible. This idea of offering TV subsidies to people to switch is beyond ludicrous. No one has a Federally-guaranteed right to free TV. If someone wants a television, there's nothing stoping most people from going and working for the money to buy one.

Re:'Yes, the very same federal government...'

[SilverspurG]

Federal spending has increased at a rate opposite of free fall

It's an acceleration. I left my physics book at work but I think it's 9.8 m/s^2. I seem to remember there being a derivation based upon kinetic energy and momentum which placed a limit on the rate of a free falling object related to mass but the details escape me. Nevertheless if hell is infinitely hot then hell has infinite mass and infinite velocity or rate of movement. So, assuming that there's no cap on federal spending (which we seem to be trying to prove), then you're saying that federal spending, as it approaches infinity, is sending us all to hell?

Re:'Yes, the very same federal government...'

[OakDragon]

I think you pasted the wrong link. This links back to the Slashdot article.

Re:'Yes, the very same federal government...'

[AK Marc]

During George W. Bush's term in office, Federal spending has increased at a rate opposite of free fall. Its one of the things that many conservatives like myself find appalling, but we don't see the Democrats as offering any real alternatives to Bush's spending plans (all they do is whine and complain).

Perhaps that is because you only see the suggestions as complaining. "Don't start a war with someone that isn't a threat based on lies" isn't a complaint. It is a factual statement of where the Democrats would have saved money that Jr. didn't. The Democrats suck at PR. That doesn't mean the don't have a plan, and a good one at that. Take a look at Clinton, and the presidents before and after him. He got a budget surplus. The debt rose by less than inflation under his term, effectively shrinking it. Had his policies remained in place, the debt would be much smaller now than it was when Jr. took office. Instead, it is much larger. Why do you need to see some concrete plan to notice that the Democrats are the only surplus generator in recent histroy, and the Republicans spend mony at an alarming rate?

My plan (as neither a Democrat, nor a Republican) would be to freeze spending to increase no more than inflation, find programs to cut, improve, or eliminate, and raise taxes. The taxes would go to paying down the debt and nothing else. When the debt is gone, taxes will be 25% less than they are now, and the budget will be balanced. If you want a 25% cut in taxes, you have to take the small tax increase now.

But no one will look at a plan that will take that long. It will have to span more than one presidency, so it will probably be eliminated by the next in line. So the people would be left with higher taxes, and someone in office that is a Republican wanting to greatly increase spending without being able to pay for it.

Re:'Yes, the very same federal government...'

[Kamel Jockey]

Perhaps that is because you only see the suggestions as complaining. "Don't start a war with someone that isn't a threat based on lies" isn't a complaint. It is a factual statement of where the Democrats would have saved money that Jr. didn't.

Wrong. Back in 2002, the Democrats were just as gung-ho about going to war in Iraq as the Republicans. You can even go back to 1998 and hear Bill Clinton explain how great of a threat Saddam Hussein was and why he needed to be removed. Other major Democratic leaders like Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy and even John Kerry also explained why Saddam had to be removed from power. Now most people in the USA understand that support was just pre-election poo-pooing so that the swing voters would not think the Democrats were a bunch of peacenik wimps (with their losses in the 2000, 2002 and 2004 elections, that did not work), but these statements are on the record, and the Democrats will not get away with a post-war rewrite of history.

Why do you need to see some concrete plan to notice that the Democrats are the only surplus generator in recent histroy

Clintons' surpluses only started after the Republicans took control of Congress in 1995. The U.S. was still coming out of a recession from 1993 to 1995, and Bill Clinton also signed into law a very hefty tax hike, both of which accounted for the shrinking deficit, but during the time the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House (1993-1995) there was no focus on controlling spending at all. Repealing that tax hike is what helped to bring us out of the 2000-2002 recession.

When the debt is gone, taxes will be 25% less than they are now, and the budget will be balanced. If you want a 25% cut in taxes, you have to take the small tax increase now.

Heh. The problem with that idea is that any extra revenue realized from tax hikes (prior to their killing the economy) is going to be wasted on more useless BS like TV subsidies. The government needs less money, not more, but there needs to be a legal cap on how much money the government can spend before it can borrow more money.

Re:'Yes, the very same federal government...'

[TheGratefulNet]

your first mistake is assuming there IS a 'war on terror'.

we're not at war any more now than we were 10 years ago. people hate the US as much now as they did before - and they have been trying to attack us for decades.

this WOT is entirely a power play by the CEO^Hpresident of our corp^Hcountry to keep himself in the luxury of 'war powers'.

nothing more.

Re:'Yes, the very same federal government...'

[Panaphonix]

then you're saying that federal spending, as it approaches infinity, is sending us all to hell?

In a way, yes. The net present value of U.S. Government indebtedness (promises to pay - future taxes - national debt today) is over $50 trillion.

Re:'Yes, the very same federal government...'

[SilverspurG]

Government debt bothers me. Nothing beats being able to borrow and spend on someone else's credit. It's become the mortgage that never ends. I've often wondered what portion of yearly taxes goes just to pay the interest on that debt. How's that interest being calculated? Does the government get the good discout rate or are the bankers raking us over the coals because they know we'll never pay it anyway?

Re:'Yes, the very same federal government...'

[Panaphonix]

Well the government sets the rate, frankly. The guys who loan the US money take what rate we give them. Of course, if Japan and the UK are in a lending mood, we might have to sweeten the deal to keep borrowing. And yeah, 7.5 cents per tax dollar goes to interest. And we have yet to see if that trade gap is as bad a thing as the budget gap.

Re:'Yes, the very same federal government...'

[AK Marc]

Wrong. Back in 2002, the Democrats were just as gung-ho about going to war in Iraq as the Republicans.

No, they weren't. It's real easy to go back now and say that, but it was not the reality then, and despite the revisionist history being played out, it isn't the case now. Bush targeted Saddam. He lied to make him appear a threat. He challenged the school-yard bully, then when the bully puffed up his chest, said "see, he is a bad man that would hurt us." If a Democrat had been president, rather than the son of a president who saw his father's re-election fail, with help from the way he handled a war with that same man, we would not have gone to war. Bush ordered his people to link 9/11 to Saddam. Bush ordered his people to linke WMDs to Saddam. Bush ordered his people to link al Qaeda to Saddam. He didn't order his people to find out who was behind 9/11, and who supported those people. He had his target, regardless of the facts. An impartial president would have not fabricated the evidence against Saddam, and we wouldn't have gone to war.

Revisionist history of saying "when put to a vote, the Democrats voted for it" doesn't mean they wanted it. They were led to think it was the only choice, and the leader was Bush (actually Carl, and Dick and others, but I'll pretend since the Republicans pretend). And the Republicans whined about a first lady having power, when the current president gives away much more than Bill Clinton ever did. A big lot of hypocrites.

Clintons' surpluses only started after the Republicans took control of Congress in 1995.

Ah yes, the implication that everything good that ever happened was the Republicans in whatever branch they controlled, and everything bad that ever happened was the Democrats in whatever branch they were in.

The government needs less money, not more, but there needs to be a legal cap on how much money the government can spend before it can borrow more money.

There essentially is, and that is what Bill Clinton didn't raise which resulted in the government being shut down. You are proposing what is already in place, but isn't working. Care to try again?

Re:'Yes, the very same federal government...'

[operagost]

That should be: Here:

The $12.7 billion in college cuts are part of an effort, led by conservative Republican lawmakers, to show discipline with the public's money. But Democrats say GOP leaders only want to pay for tax cuts, all the while eroding the ability of parents to pay for college.

The timing of Senate action was unclear. Colleges and university associations scrambled Monday, urging the Senate to reject the bill as the Congress tried to end its 2005 work.

Within higher education, the single biggest cut appears to be in the profits of lenders.

Under current law, banks get to keep the excess money when the amounts that students pay in interest exceed the rate of return that the government has guaranteed. That would end. Lenders would have to refund the difference to the government, meaning billions of dollars.

"We were able to reduce spending through changes in the way lenders operate," said Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., the chairman of the Senate education committee. "But at the same time, we shielded the direct impact to students, and actually increased student opportunities."

The interest rate for parent loans would increase to a fixed rate of 8.5 percent in July. It is now a variable rate and had been set to move to a fixed rate of 7.9 percent.

Meanwhile, the interest on students loans would also move to a fixed rate of 6.8 percent in July, up from its current variable rate of 4.7 percent. But that change was already set to happen under law, and the deficit-reduction bill does not alter that plan. Student groups tend to support a fixed rate as a protection against unstable, rising interest rates.

Loan limits would increase from $2,625 to $3,500 for first-year students, and from $3,500 to $4,500 for second-year students. The total borrowing limit allowed for undergraduates would remain at $23,000. Lawmakers aimed for a compromise of letting students borrow more at the start of college, reflecting current needs, without sanctioning a bigger overall debt.

The bill would offer grants to poorer, high-achieving students in the first two years of college and older undergraduates studying math, science or high-demand foreign languages.

TV is necessary for Government

[Naatach]

Television is a necessary component for our government. $1.5 Billion is a good investment on two counts:

1) The billions the government can rake in in radio frequency auctions
2) Continuance of a medium to keep the unwashed masses under control.

Re:TV is necessary for Government

[kalbzayn]

Plus the government needs us to have the best picture possible to show themselves kissing babies and smearing the opponents when they run for election. I, for one, am tired of trying to tell if that baby has a mole on his cheek or apple sauce. This HD upgrade is a much needed improvement.

Re:TV is necessary for Government

[Billosaur]

But once the analog to digital switch is made, then the TV pirates can come out and broadcast their subversive message in analog so all those with the old sets and no way to upgrade will receive it. After all, the government won't be able to jam the wavelength, as it will interfere with the digital signals as well.

TV vouchers?

[fleaboy]

You have got to be kidding me. What's next? Crack cocaine vouchers? All one would have to do is go out in public to get their fix, almost every place you go there's an idiot box. At least my idiot box, this computer, is an interactive idiot box!

Re:TV vouchers?

[xoip]

What's next? Crack cocaine vouchers?
Well...we have those up here in Canada City of Ottawa Gives away Free Crack Pipes

Re:TV vouchers?

[fleaboy]

Guess yall are a step ahead of the GAME, eh?

Take a look at the UK...

[Conor Turton]

Maybe the US could build a system along the lines of Freeview, http://www.freeview.co.uk/ or FreeSat, http://www.freesatfromsky.co.uk/

Set top boxes cost from as little as £30 for terrestrial thus meaning those 70 million analogue TVs will be good for years to come.

Re:Take a look at the UK...

[kannibal_klown]

Some sort of combined digital broadcasting service would be nice, though I wish it wouldn't be satellite.

I live on the side of a valley, which isn't so bad. Except for the fact that I pretty much can't get a dish. Between the hiil and the tall trees I don't have a clear path to any of the decent satellites for DirectTV or Dish. Heck, I found out my GPS can't even acquire enough satellites on my street to determine its altitude.

The next time I move, I gotta make sure it's somewhere with an unobstructeud view of the sky and the satellites hovering over it.

Re:Take a look at the UK...

[alext]

Freesat and Freesat from Sky are not the same thing cf. Freesat

Re:Take a look at the UK...

[Conor Turton]

Freesat and Freesat from Sky are not the same thing

Indeed. One actually exists (the one I posted) and another is still being developed. "Freesat" name applies to both though and for the end user they both work the same.

Re:Take a look at the UK...

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

Set top boxes cost from as little as £30 for terrestrial thus meaning those 70 million analogue TVs will be good for years to come.

Exactly! This article description is hugely misleading. There is no need for new television sets - using converter boxes has been the plan all along.

Indeed, you can already purchase ATSC recievers for as little as $90:

http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?produc tId=2104191&cp=&pg=1&y=6&x=2&kw=hdtv+tuner&s=A-Sto rePrice-RSK&parentPage=search

That's $35 more than £30, but it's still pretty affordable. And the price will only drop as demand increases - there's just not that much in an ATSC IRD.

Re:Take a look at the UK...

[drsquare]

They don't work very well, they're very fickle, a slight bit of degradation in the signal, or rain, and the picture freezes up for 10 seconds or so.

You can't get teletext either, and it takes several seconds to change the channel.

I'm sticking with analogue, the new digital channels are only full of crap anyway.

Re:Take a look at the UK...

[shmmeee]

I've never had any issues with either my set top box, or my PCI card. Maybe you need a new antenna? You do raise an issue I have with digital signals though, which is they don't degrade gracefully, you get a perfect picture or no picture at all. I know it's in the nature of the beast, but annoying none the less.

Problem solved

[wetfeetl33t]

Looks like after 2009, I won't be watching any TV. You don't hear me complaining!

What happened to the free market?

[BlackStar]

Why is this being legislated? Broadcast could represent a major opportunity as a niche system. All that infrastructure will just be junked? There's a lot of legs left in those transmitters and in the analog network. Economically, this doesn't make any sense.

Add to that the landfill mess this looks to cause. That's a LOT of analog TVs that go to essentially worthless in very short order. We're already dealing with too much computer waste going into the landfills, and now the US is going to legislate putting a very large pile of still functioning and capable televisions in there all at once?

Brilliant. Special interest groups at work again in the legislature it would seem.

Re:What happened to the free market?

[I.AM.BLORT]

no tv's need to go to landfill. we just won't be able to use their tuners and will instead have to rely on a cable box like over the air tuner for digital telvision on an older tv. no need for landfilling except for the actual transmission equipment in the stations regionally, and honestly, the majority of that will end up in the non US market where analog NTSC is still just fine.

Re:What happened to the free market?

[HomerJayS]

>>Why is this being legislated?...Economically, this doesn't make any sense.

It doesn't make economic sense for the broadcasters, but it does for the government.

Billions in revenue to federal government from auction of the freed up spectrum. Billions to state and local governments from the sales taxes on new TVs and converter boxes.

Re:What happened to the free market?

[pcraven]

It is being legislated because the spectrum is legislated. It would open up a lot of money's worth of spectrum, more than 1.5 billion worth.

You don't have to junk the TV, just get a digital receiver and then plug it into your current TV.

Re:What happened to the free market?

[BlackStar]

Well, that will pay for the subsidies anway. ;-)

The spectrum I can see to some degree, but I'm curious as to why it isn't shut down in pieces. There's a LOT of bandwidth in there, and you can trim the broadcast spectrum a chunk of channels at a time without causing a bit pile of chaos. This is to launch the digital TV market with larger mass, which is just commercial interest. That will cause it to take longer for the market to become efficient and competitive in theory. In practice, it's just more channels and features for junk programming. :-)

Re:What happened to the free market?

[Software]

My understanding is that owners of existing analog televisions will have to buy (possibly with government assistance) a tuner/converter box that plugs into their antenna and their television. Maybe they'll need to get a remote control to change the channel. Nobody needs to throw out their television. Yes, some people will instead buy a new digital TV, but it won't be a big deal in the larger scheme of things.

Analog TV transmitters, on the other hand, will probably be mostly useless. Most antenna towers do not have a lot of extra space to keep around unused antennas, so the analog TV antennas will be removed and replaced with something else. It makes perfect economic sense - something of lower value will be replaced with something of higher value.

Re:What happened to the free market?

[Namronorman]

You don't have to throw away the TV's, you just have to get a digital to analog converter. Atleast that's what the article says, but still I think that sucks.

Re:What happened to the free market?

[ets960]

Moving to digital signals makes sense. There will be better quality signals in a smaller amount of bandwith. Digital TV's, like HDTV's are much better quality and are more appealing to look at. There is a natural progression towards these things. However, the broadcasters would never want to move to digital because then they have to upgrade all of their equipment and they would end up losing all of their equipment. Without the government pushing and legislating for this transition, there would be no change. This means that there would be technological stagnancy, and nothing would change. People don't pay for free OTA signals and the advertising companies wouldn't want to fork over the extra money to make their ads look a little nicer. As far as I'm concerned, this is necessary and I think they should do it as soon as possible. Plus I just bought an HDTV and I want my damn HD channels.

Re:What happened to the free market?

[trogdor8667]

Besides, even if all else fails, there's still how many countries in the world that would still be able to use analog TVs?

Re:What happened to the free market?

[jammindice]

I couldn't find the post that made me want to find this and post it, but this is as good a place as any...

There are 2 things here that everyone is trying roll up into one ginormous problem.

Number 1 is the elimination of the ANALOG broadcast spectrum.
Number 2 is the conversion to DIGITAL television.

Now from what the article says it looks like the analog portion of the public (free) broadcast system is what is going to dissapear. And if anyone read the article they would have noticed this quote:

Roughly 20 million of those soon-to-be-obsolete sets are in homes where people don't subscribe to cable or satellite. The other 50 million or so are in pay TV homes, and used as second, third or fourth sets. Sets hooked up to cable or satellite services should work fine no matter what.

So... Anyone already on Satellite or Cable (or other type of tv service) service that does't depend on the analog broadcast spectrum, it's business as usual. You don't even have to get an hd tv, or digital converter box or any of that bs.

The only ones who will require anything at all, are disadvantaged people who can't afford a new "digital" tv and can't afford a service like cable or satellite.

I'm not trying to be all high and mighty, but before we all think that (as the parent seems to) our tv's are no longer worth anything and we might as well junk them, you might want to just investigate the problem. Not sayin i'm 100% right either, and if i'm wrong please correct me.

Re:What happened to the free market?

[krouskop]

My first reaction was "why can't the market take care of this" too. Broadcasters could just keep broadcasting in both analog and digital until the cost of doing the analog broadcasting exceeded cost of upsetting customers when they cut off analog broadcasting.

As I thought about it though, government intervention does seem somewhat justified. (My inner-libertarian can't believe I just wrote that.) The justification comes from the government wanting the frequencies back for emergency communication. $1.5B seems kind of steep for a frequency range, but viewing this change over as the government buying back a frequency range for emergency communication definitely makes this look much more justified than viewing it as "Big Media has Uncle Sam in it's pocket again."

Re:What happened to the free market?

[slashname3]

That's a LOT of analog TVs that go to essentially worthless in very short order.

Just how many people will really be affected by this? I suspect a large majority of people use cable services. Cable companies will continue to provide standard analog signals, I don't think they are mandated to change to pure digital. It is just the over the air broadcasts. So if the majority of people currently have cable service just how many are using pure over the air broadcasts? I think a lot less than the 70 million touted else wear in this thread of messages.

So the problem is not going to be as large as some expect. If they actually hand out 70 million vouchers you can bet that most of them are going into some congress critters pocket or the pocket of a special interest, not into the hands of the poor.

Crazy catch 22

[fak3r]

What can be done? I really wish there was a way to use both, or make digital backwards compatable with analog sets. I know there must be more tech behind this than that, but hell, giving money for people to buy new TVs? I think there are some basic needs that could be fufilled first. (can I get a healthcare witness?) Again, we're all used to Apple breaking backwards compatibility (to their credit, OS 9 'classic' apps run tons better now under OS X than when 10.1 came out), but the government? They're all about being behind!

Re:Crazy catch 22

[Ironsides]

They are not giving people money to buy new TVs. They are giving vouchers to buy a converter box so you can recieve a DTV signal and watch TV on the analog sets!

In the Bay Area

[OYAHHH]

In,

The San Francisco Bay Area the digital transition will not work without a lot of upgrading on peoples part.

There are multiple transmission locations for TV in the Bay Area. This basically means that unless you have one of those monster antennas on your roof you will need an antenna pointed in the direction of the transmissions. Think multiple antennas. Multiple friends of mine have multiple antennas.

Not only that, but from all accounts of those already trying to receive digital transimissions, including myself, digital signals simply do not travel as far.

Or perhaps lets put it another way, the signal may travel just as far as a current day signal, but at the ranges quite a few people in the SF Bay Area are at from the transmission tower the signal is too weak to register within the digital TV receiver to be accurately display. Thus, either you get a perfect signal (or picture if you will) or you get nothing at all. And a lot more people, including myself, are getting nothing at all on my HDTV since I'm just far enough away that the signal seems to be too weak. And I live in the San Jose area, 30 or so miles from San Francisco as the bird flys.

Lastly, quite a few people in the east of SF live in quite mountainous conditions. Cannot pick up things there either.

Re:In the Bay Area

[Ironsides]

Most DTV Transmitters have not been transmitting at full power. There is a deadline coming up at some point where they will have to start transmitting at full power, at that point you should have much better recepetion. As to why they have not been xmitting at full? Power costs a lot of money. TV stations generally spend 10k per month on a single transmitter.

Re:In the Bay Area

[nsayer]

And a lot more people, including myself, are getting nothing at all on my HDTV since I'm just far enough away that the signal seems to be too weak. And I live in the San Jose area, 30 or so miles from San Francisco as the bird flys.

I live in Santa Clara and I'm getting everything more or less perfectly with a sort of "medium" size log-yagi aimed Northwest on a ten foot pole on the roof of our single story house. I'd be hard pressed to see how anyone in the south bay north of Morgan Hill would not be able to easily do the same. It sounds to me like you've got problems unrelated to your antenna or location.

Lastly, quite a few people in the east of SF live in quite mountainous conditions. Cannot pick up things there either.

That's why they invented CATV. And folks who get their TV from cable or satellite don't matter for this discussion.

Re:In the Bay Area

[makomk]

I don't know about over in the US, but here in the UK most digital transmitters are on reduced power because they'd interfere with analog reception in other areas otherwise...

Re:In the Bay Area

[javaxman]

The parent has a really, really good point. Plenty of people who live in apartment buildings in SF and Oakland are going to end up being able to get fewer channels, since they won't have the ability to set up outdoor antenna. Especially if they end up with older or poor quality receivers, plenty of folks just won't get coverage as predicted.

This is in part due to some overly generous predictions made by the FCC and equipment manufacturers as to what signal levels are needed to get a viewable picture, but it's also just because they also assume you have a nice outdoor antenna, which few do.

We're talking about poor people who don't have cable or satellite, though. I mean, does congress really care that much? Do those folks even vote? How many people really get their signal off-air anymore?

If they really cared, those vouchers would cover more that $40. Even after the transition, most set-top DTV receivers are going to be more than $100... plenty of them right now are still $300...

Re:In the Bay Area

[Ironsides]

Over all, there is more than just cost to this. Some of the stations don't yet have full power broadcast sites (you can build a site to broadcast at a max of 5kw or 500kw, and pay a big difference in price too). Some of it has come down to interference, but not usually with analog broadcast. Two cases in point:

In Michigan, CH3 started broadcasting digital at full power and wiped out the cable system in Chicago acoss the lake. In Texas, a DTV went up to full power and overpowered the wireless heart monitors in a hospital who thought they had many patients going code blue simultaniously. This second is partly due to the FCC allowing uses of the TV spectrum for non-licensed uses, so long as they do not interfere with TV. It is coming back to haunt them. The heart monitors are being moved to a new frequency.

As for interference with analog, there might be some in adjacent markets (about halfway between the two transmitters) during the tranistion to all DTV. The way the DTV standard was designed, a DTV station on 6 will not interfere with any station analog or digital on 7, unless there is something wrong with the ch6 transmitter. There currently should not be any issues with interference. However, since unusual things do occur, they are bringing them up well before the deadline to find out any issues that may occur. I haven't yeat heard of a DTV station taking a broadcast TV station off the air anywhere yet.

Re:In the Bay Area

[floateyedumpi]

I highly doubt this. In my experience, it's much easier to pick up a decent digital signal, even with a small indoor amplified set of rabbit ears/UHF dish, than the equivalent analog signal. That's the beauty of a digital signal: it takes amplification very well. From my point of view, mandating digital will only improve the quality of over the air reception of the average user.

Also note that more than 80% of homes already get their programming from cable or satellite, and I can't see this move as anything but good, probably resulting in more over the air users than anytime in the last 15 years.

television serves the interests of the state

[Surt]

Any entity that is to continue to exist must look out for its own survival.

In our current system of government, the greatest danger to the existing power structure is voting. A better educated populace is more likely to vote, while a TV watching populace is less likely to do so. So it is in the interests of the state to do what it can to discourage education beyond the minimum level necessary to support the state. Hence the emphasis on putting lots of dollars into extending the reach and influence of TV.

Re:television serves the interests of the state

[Rocketship Underpant]

"Any entity that is to continue to exist must look out for its own survival."

You're on the right track there.

"In our current system of government, the greatest danger to the existing power structure is voting."

I disagree. The democratic state relies almost entirely on masses of selfish people voting. It's so much easier to keep their power by pandering to the ignorant 70% than by demonstrating true merit to the smarter 30%. All they have to do is promise each large demographic that they'll give them a bunch of stuff for nothing, and then steal that stuff from someone else. In fact, the state's best customers (voters) are the country's least productive people, the sorts who would rather watch 6 hours of TV a night than go be entrepreneurial or pay down the credit card.

That's why they always push to get as many people to vote as possible. In fact, many democracies are trying to make non-voting a crime. Getting all those uninformed people to rubber-stamp the politicians' activities is just too important.

Is the government up to something by legislating digital TV? Definitely, but it probably has more to do with all the media companies that give Congressmen bribes and campaign financing. It's one more step towards the total media lock-in that the MPAA and TV companies want. Everything you're allowed to watch will be subject to government licenses and industry DRM.

news?

[pruss]

Can't one get news and weather from the radio, also for free (except you have to buy a receiver, but those are cheaper than TVs)?

Re:news?

[ets960]

Radio is being legislated to turn digital as well. People will then need to buy digital radios or digital converters for their radios.

Isn't radio still free?

[Rifter13]

Why does everyone have to get their news from TV? Radio is still free, and a lot of stations do news at the top and bottom of the hour. I don't see how TV is a right... the government should not subsidise this. What's next, subsidised XM radio so everyone can hear Howard Stern?

Re:Isn't radio still free?

[Namronorman]

Yeah, but instead of just any radio station, listen to public radio!

Sheep

[Anonymous Coward]

Now go and be good sheep. Watch your new TVs, and be sure to covet everything you see in our advertisements. Buy, Buy, BUY! At least when we take your health care away, and you're dying of a disease that has a cure that just doesn't turn us a profit, you can still have all that stuff to hold on to as your skin melts off.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

What the?

[CaffeineAddict2001]

If you are poor, elderly or uneducated TV should be the last thing you are worrying about.

This really gives some credit to the theory that the primary purpose of television is to pacify people and have them forget the real problems they face.

Re:What the?

[limabone]

Yeah...those stupid elderly people should get a job or go to college and earn a degree...they have got some nerve!!!

Re:What the?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or die, and allow those currently paying for their Social Security checks to have a snowball's chance of every seeing a Social Security payment.

I had $8000 for social security deducted from my paychecks last year, and will, more likely than not, never see a dime of it again.

Re:What the?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're elderly (like my old man) you're likely living on a pension and Social Security. They don't have a lot of spare cash laying around.

The old man's worked since before I was born (and I'm not young any more), you think he doesn't deserve retirement?

What else would you have the old and poor do, drink and gamble? Here's a hint: drinking and gambling cost money, money the poor and elderly don't have. Or would you rather the old man spend his free time selling crack?

You young dickheads all begrudge people stuff (like TV) they've worked all their lives for. Guess what - unless the rest of us are lucky, you'll be old some day. Remember this post, young assholes.

They thought WE were bad, today's youth (at least the /.ers) are stupid, cruel, and heartless. Just like their President.

BTW, apologies for a/c, it's mcgrew here. Fuck all of you. mrc... no mrc today. Please get the mrc machine fixed, k?thx

Re:What the?

[oyenstikker]

deserve.
deserve.

Who decides who deserves what? You can save for retirement. But don't work your whole life, not save a penny, and then come to me because you think you _deserve_ a retriement, and think I should pay for it.

Young people begrudge older people stuff because the people who have it now got [some of] it with the young people's money, and the young people aren't going to get any money from the even younger.

Re:What the?

[dstanzi]

>This really gives some credit to the theory that the primary purpose of television is to pacify people and have them forget the real problems they face.

Nah, we have religion for that...

Re:What the?

[evilviper]

If you are poor, elderly or uneducated TV should be the last thing you are worrying about.

You are saying that because the only thing you happen to watch is mind-numbing crap on TV. Those who are uneducated and/or poor can benefit greatly from televised educational programs, as well as news, politics, etc.

I am absolutely ASTONISHED just how popular your point of view is, here on /.

Not really that bad

[soapee01]

From tfa: the sale of the spectrum would generate approximately $10b in revenue. The net gain ($10b - $1.5b) would still be a revenue influx of $8.5b. This sounds like a (surprisingly) fair and mutually beneficial deal.

Regardless of your feeleings on television, it is important that everyone have free (or near free) access to news, state of the union addresses, etc.

Re:Not really that bad

[voice_of_all_reason]

The net gain ($10b - $1.5b) would still be a revenue influx of $8.5b.

The net gain ($10b - $1.5b) for Halliburton would still be a revenue influx of $8.5b.

fixed.

Re:Not really that bad

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want news and presidential addresses, support your local National Public Radio station. The government is interested in cutting the Public Radio budget in favor of keeping televised garbage such as Desperate Housewives on air and available to the masses.

Re:Not really that bad

[Anonymous Coward]

In my cowardly opinion, the $10 billion figure cited for potential bandwidth auction revenue is GROSSLY overstated. Recent worldwide spectrum auction revenues have fallen far short of expectations. The expectation that there will be ubiquitous and cheap broadband availability is incongruent with paying for supporting infrastructure AND paying this order of magnitude for the associated spectrum. At the end of the day there has to be a business case - investors WILL discipline bidding companies to a greater degree than in the "bubble days" - and to the extent that the government is successful in garnering auction revenues close to this amount, it will undermine the extension of benefits to consumers and the business community. Now... if you want to talk about efficiency gains and multiplier effects associated with the new technology if it is allowed to roll out without userous spectrum costs... then there may be a net benefit... (???)

Re:Not really that bad

[ipfwadm]

From tfa: the sale of the spectrum would generate approximately $10b in revenue. The net gain ($10b - $1.5b) would still be a revenue influx of $8.5b. This sounds like a (surprisingly) fair and mutually beneficial deal.

It's a pretty big assumption that the only cost associated with the analog -> digital switchover is the vouchers. My guess is that the government has as of today already spent far more than $10B, even before taking into account the anticipated cost of the vouchers.

Re:Not really that bad

[aeoo]

Access to "State of the Union" address is more important that combatting poverty initiatives, such as food stamps, etc.? Are you insane?

A hungry down and out man doesn't give a rats ass about state of the union. Give him some financial aid, a permanent address, a shower, some clothes, some places to stay, and pound the hugely discriminating employers into sumbission to (forcefully, if need be) hire the person out. Call it "affirmative employment".

It is complete BS that access to our President's WAR MONGER MORON speach is more important than basic life saving needs of our citizens. The government needs to check out how people live in the middle USA, and what so say of homeless. We should absolutely care about our poor people at the government level, simply because individuals are too greedy (too aggressive and too competitive) at this time.

Radio still works

[FifteenSquids]

I would think anyone that can't afford a TV can still get "essential" information from a radio until they can afford one. Vouchers should be for education, not TV's. These "poor" folks that would receive vouchers are probably finding a way to pay for cable right now.

Re:Radio still works

[FifteenSquids]

Oooops, I missed this part of the article:

"Roughly 20 million of those soon-to-be-obsolete sets are in homes where people don't subscribe to cable or satellite."

I'm still anti-voucher though...

Re:Radio still works

[Karma Farmer]

These "poor" folks that would receive vouchers are probably finding a way to pay for cable right now.

People with cable don't need OTA digital tuners, mr. smart guy.

Great...

[DaedalusLogic]

I am really going to hate to see TV vouchers end up in the hands of people living on government assistance. I still have fresh memories of walking into a subsidized housing development and seeing a 60" TV on one wall, and a stack of $100 bills on a coffee table.

That being said, If it's only going to be "earmarked" for vouchers, and not blindly spent... the $21.43 that is spent on replacing each of those those 70 million sets will have a decent economic impact... I would just rather see that money being spent elsewhere.

Re:Great...

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm... that was from drug dealing, not government handouts.

Re:Great...

[Ironsides]

As much as I agree with you, I do know of some people that can use the vouchers and aren't on assistance. (Mostly these people are in there 80s). Here's a way that money can be saved.

To avoid a consumer revolt, Congress has set aside about $1.5 billion to smooth the transition. Owners of outmoded TV sets will be eligible for two vouchers, worth $40 each, to help buy converter boxes that will enable today's analog TV sets to receive digital signals.

We give 1 voucher out and spend 750 million instead. Or, 1 voucher to twice as many people. If someone really "needs" two converter boxes, they aren't in the group this is targeting.

Re:Great...

[DaedalusLogic]

Hey, everyone! It's Captain Obvious' alter-ego Anonymous Coward.

But seriously... I'm pretty sure whatever was going on there was illegal, but I can't prove it... Like I'm pretty sure the computer they had was stolen. But all I can do is check serial numbers and if it comes up clean... keep on moving. Because leveling a false accusation can get me in a hell of a lot of trouble if he was on the level. Not to mention that I might as well paint a target on my ass for ratting out a dealer.

Re:Great...

[dangitman]

But seriously... I'm pretty sure whatever was going on there was illegal, but I can't prove it...

So what was your comment about? If there is criminal profit being made by individuals ... how does that reflect badly on government subsidies? Doesn't it just mean that that there's criminal activity going on? maybe the government should crack down on the illegal activity, but I'm not sure what it has to do with social security or subsidized housing.

Re:Great...

[DaedalusLogic]

Good point... Consider if I rent out my house to someone who uses it to manufacture methamphetamine. I can be held liable for civil and criminal offenses for the impact that the lab has on the property and the community, and if I fail to report the activity.

Too little attention is paid to the illegal activity that goes on in subsidized housing in my community... Someone needs to be down there to say, "You own $5,000 worth of new electronics, move out and get an apartment." It's their money to spend... but the taxpayers are their landlord AND their source of support. We should be able to say when one get's cut off.

But resources are spread too thin... and sending people out to developments costs money.

I'm not saying that all subsidized housing is bad. I'm just saying that it shouldn't be abused... Like multi-million dollar bridges to an island of fifty people etc.

Set-top box?

[Soruk]

The UK seems to have got the right idea. We can get digital terrestrial set-top boxes that plug into the TV, via a SCART lead (which carries, amongst other things RGB and Composite picture signals, and stereo audio), or on a few boxes via an analogue RF signal. That way virtually all existing TV sets can remain in use long after the switch-over takes place.

Only the really old sets don't have SCART sockets now, and although suitable boxes with RF Out exist they are more expensive.

Re:Set-top box?

[Ironsides]

Digital Terestrial? Sounds like cable. So you are proposing that the US set up a cable network for everyone in the country? How would this work for places like Kansas where some areas have a population of 1/km^2 or less?

Re:Set-top box?

[Des Herriott]

Digital terrestrial is not cable, at least in not a UK context. The "terrestrial" part means it's broadcast from ground-based transmitters, as opposed to satellites or cable. It still comes in to our houses over the airwaves.

Re:Set-top box?

[kfg]

What the hell does that do for the Chinese economy?

KFG

Re:Set-top box?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, digital terrestrial is over the air same as the old analogue signal, we just buy freeview boxes for ~£30 to receive the signal if our tvs don't have a digital decoder built in. We can also get digital cable or satellite in most areas.

Re:Set-top box?

[AndroSyn]

Digital Terrestrial = digital television signals broadcast over the air.

Re:Set-top box?

[ettlz]

I feel that I should point out here that SCART is a terrible idea. The majority of SCART cables are cheaply made without proper RF shielding giving terrible cross-talk between the lines.

Re:Set-top box?

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel that I should point out here that SCART is a terrible idea. The majority of SCART cables are cheaply made without proper RF shielding giving terrible cross-talk between the lines.
 
Hence the reason most people chuck out the free SCART cables and buy decent new ones, a lot of electronics don't even come with cables and expect you to buy one. When you buy hifi equipment do you keep the shitty free phono leads? AFAIK most people replace them.

Re:Set-top box?

[ettlz]

The biggest culprits are the two-way cables with internally unshielded composite video lines (i.e., not mini co-ax, not even foil wrapped around the core). Many modern TVs, when in AV mode, will output the signal from their tuner to the composite out pin of their SCART connectors. The unused wire in the cable then induces this signal in the video in line(s), giving ghosting. I've had to cut this unnecessary line on most of my SCART cables.

Re:Set-top box?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whereas presumably cheaply made cables of other kinds are magically resistant to this problem ?

Oh no, that's right the average American is still using composite, and thinks two lines is enough for a decent video signal. "Look at my excellent picture quality" he says pointing at a fuzzy low-res over-saturated mess.

SCART is a fairly good standard, with a lot to recommend it. As always, don't buy the cheapest available cables (nor the outrageously expensive branded ones if you've any sense).

Re:Set-top box?

[evilviper]

Set-top boxes are EXACTLY what is going to be used in the US for those who don't want to buy a new HDTV, so what the hell is the point of your post?

The difference between the US and Europe is that the US is also switching to far, far higher resolutions in the process, so there's no possible way you can get all the benefits of the new digital broadcasts with an old TV.

Re:Set-top box?

[shmmeee]

That's funny, according to http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds26019.html the BBC are trialling HD-TV over digital terrestrial signal in the UK. So, exactly what resolution are you guys using that's "far, far higher"?

Re:Set-top box?

[evilviper]

BBC are trialling HD-TV over digital terrestrial signal in the UK. So, exactly what resolution are you guys using that's "far, far higher"?

That leads to the question: Are you really this stupid, or are you just trolling?

They are just trialing HD resolutions right now, the whole UK isn't switching to HD right now, as we are in the US. The set-top-boxes the OP was referring to are for standard-definition digital TV.

The US, however, is switching to HDTV right now, at the same time it is switching to digital. So, just getting a set-top-box won't give you the benefits of HDTV, although what the OP proposed is not only possible, but exactly what is happening.

See first question.

Why set any regulations or standards by force?

[dada21]

Why is Congress and the FCC even bothering with what is obviously not within their powers as delegated to them by the Constitution? The 9th and 10th Amendments apply here.

First, setting a regulatory standard for television broadcasts and forcing the industry to adhere to them is no longer necessary -- when TV was new, I can understand government enforcing a standard. With technology changing monthly, letting the market figure out what is needed is the best solution.

To me, this seems to be simple cronyism by the State. By creating these standards, they're creating a high cost to entry in the video broadcast market. The quicker we see broadband hit the homes, the more I realize that broadcast television is a complete waste of space. Deregulating ALL broadcast television and letting the frequencies be used by wireless broadcasters would make much more sense to me. Can you imagine how cheap and how fast wireless would be if we gave up all those megahertz?

Broadcasting isn't even important: people want video on demand (whether by cable, satellite, ThePirateBay, or PVR). Broadcasting isn't even efficient anymore: advertisers prefer knowing exact numbers rather than "we think we hit 700,000 with this show." In the long run, Congress and the FCC are applying ideas from 1970 to technology that could change 20 times in the next 20 years. Why restrict it?

I say it is time to just ignore these guys -- if big TV broadcasters want to continue to make a mess and force the little guy out of the business, let them. We'll counter it with rebroadcaster their garbage over BitTorrent and through the sharing of information as it was meant to be: free. Take the infinite supply of data versus the finite demand and you end up with a cost of zero.

Re:Why set any regulations or standards by force?

[voice_of_all_reason]

Why is Congress and the FCC even bothering with what is obviously not within their powers as delegated to them by the Constitution? The 9th and 10th Amendments apply here.

Well, no one seemed to have a problem when they ignored the other amendments... like right to a speedy trial, right to a public trial, and due process. And that's just Jose Padilla!

Re:Why set any regulations or standards by force?

[dangitman]

With technology changing monthly, letting the market figure out what is needed is the best solution.

That sounds rather backwards. If stuff is changing rapidly, wouldn't an outside standard be much more important? If technology were changing more slowly, there would be much less need for deliberate standardization or intervention, because we wouldn't have a crazy array of incompatible technologies.

Re:Why set any regulations or standards by force?

[Anonymous Coward]

Broadcasting isn't even important

TV broadcasting may not be important (to you anyway), but when used properly, the FCC is designed to make sure nothing interferes with the important uses of broadcasting like cellphones, emergency dispatch radios, satellite signals, timekeeping radio signals, emergency beacons, and so on.

Nothing like being lost somewhere and flipping open your GPS receiver to see where you are, only to be told you're 20 miles above sea level at 120.3S,192.8E. You try to call for help on your cellphone but all you get is some angry trucker telling you to get off his CB channel. Finally, in desparation, you pull the cord on your emergency beacon, only to hear "I hope that someone gets my, I hope that someone gets my, I hope that someone gets my message in a bottle".

The FCC is probably one of the few departments of the federal government that is not useless or worse.

Re:Why set any regulations or standards by force?

[AeroIllini]

Why is Congress and the FCC even bothering with what is obviously not within their powers as delegated to them by the Constitution? The 9th and 10th Amendments apply here.

Because we let them. They do not have any power that we as a people don't grant to them. Luckily for them, that granting of power can be passive, since voter apathy about issues that truly matter to our freedoms (not the abortion and gay-marriage shoutfests) is at an all time high.

First, setting a regulatory standard for television broadcasts and forcing the industry to adhere to them is no longer necessary -- when TV was new, I can understand government enforcing a standard. With technology changing monthly, letting the market figure out what is needed is the best solution.

The government only has a right to regulate those areas where there is a finite amount of space for competition, such as the radio spectrum. There are only so many radio bands, and companies have to share. Regulating ensures that the sharing is done fairly (at least in a perfect world, which this isn't). The FCC has no business regulating cable television, since there is no scarcity of bandwidth. Most cable television broadcasters self-censor in order to avoid public backlash. But there is no legal reason why Spike TV can't start broadcasting porn.

To me, this seems to be simple cronyism by the State. By creating these standards, they're creating a high cost to entry in the video broadcast market.

Politicians always try to protect those who give them money. Media companies contributed $26 million in the 2000 and 2002 election cycles.

The quicker we see broadband hit the homes, the more I realize that broadcast television is a complete waste of space. Deregulating ALL broadcast television and letting the frequencies be used by wireless broadcasters would make much more sense to me. Can you imagine how cheap and how fast wireless would be if we gave up all those megahertz?

Fast? Certainly. Cheap? Not on your life. Keep in mind it would be sold by the same companies that charge $50 a month for basic cable that is completely ad supported.

Broadcasting isn't even important: people want video on demand (whether by cable, satellite, ThePirateBay, or PVR).

Hear, hear. The days of the "push medium" are coming to a middle.

Broadcasting isn't even efficient anymore: advertisers prefer knowing exact numbers rather than "we think we hit 700,000 with this show."

Absolutely. Unfortunately, if the advertisers knew exactly which ads were working and which were not, they would purchase less advertising, since they would be able to stop "wasting" money on advertising that is ineffectual. This worries the sellers of advertising space.

In the long run, Congress and the FCC are applying ideas from 1970 to technology that could change 20 times in the next 20 years.

Legislation is always years behind technology. Nothing new to see here.

Why restrict it?

Because their campaign financers are asking them to.

I say it is time to just ignore these guys -- if big TV broadcasters want to continue to make a mess and force the little guy out of the business, let them. We'll counter it with rebroadcaster [sic] their garbage over BitTorrent and through the sharing of information as it was meant to be: free. Take the infinite supply of data versus the finite demand and you end up with a cost of zero.

Ok, I was with you up until here.

Information may want to be free, but entertainment sure doesn't. It costs a lot of money to create that entertainment, and the people who made it naturally want that money back. The problem is that within the current system, the market forces are skewed, because people have to pay for bundled sets of entertainment or allow the advertisers to choose what they watch. Unfortunately for the consumers, a pull medium is simply not viable as an

Re:Why set any regulations or standards by force?

[SilverspurG]

<i>Because we let them

Who's this "we"? Is that like "they"?

Re:Why set any regulations or standards by force?

[ets960]

If you're getting something for free and the government then wants to take it away, don't you think that would piss a bunch of people off?

I agree with you that the bandwidth would be better served for wireless internet infrastructure, but theres a lot of people out there, my grandparents included, that watch broadcast TV and don't want to pay for it.

It seems like this is the way to do it to make *most* people happy/content about the final outcome.

Re:Why set any regulations or standards by force?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Why is Congress and the FCC even bothering with what is obviously not within their powers as delegated to them by the Constitution? The 9th and 10th Amendments apply here." & "...when TV was new, I can understand government enforcing a standard."

I must be fuzzy because the words seem conflicted there.

"Deregulating ALL broadcast television and letting the frequencies be used by wireless broadcasters..."

Hmmph. I like the sound of it. However, there could possibly be problems in generating usable services if a number of entities 'fought' over the spectrum in a Might Makes Right fashion. Granted, even a little fear of *that* does not distract me from the beauty of seeing no regulation.

On the other hand, it might even be interesting to posit the unintended benefits of too much in-fighting over spectrum, such as extremely localized services popping out of garages or community projects because it's just not cost effective for MegaCorps to battle over large territories. I suppose it is possible for such an extreme breakdown to have unimagined GoodThings (tm) happen. Interesting. Hmmph.

As for the last part of that fragment, the downside to deregulating as you suggest would probably mean those wireless services would never flourish at all without regulations.

And, to boot, if you (the mythical you, hypothetical member of an elite governing body who pretends to debate with itself) don't regulate, you certainly get no increased revenue to invest into political pocketlining projects such as acquiring the natural resources your energy firms need for record profits from powerless new colonies which increase demand for the expensive products manufactured by your defense firms while having the added bonus of creating opportunities for your intertangled engineering firms to receive lucrative contracts to rebuild ...or, perhaps, stockpiling expensive placeabos created exclusively by your very own pharmaceutical company thanks to the intellectual property protection you cleverly awarded to it not long before you began advertising the scary New Disease it pretends to "fight effectively" over the very naturally existing spectrum you coyly chose to regulate.

("Reduce the federal deficit," indeed. Har, har to the mindless propoganda, Gunther!).

"Broadcasting isn't even important"

Bingo.

"I say it is time to just ignore these guys"

As you probably know, more and more of us do. Hooray for cash, digital currencies, encryption and a plethora of honest, like-minded individuals.

Re:Why set any regulations or standards by force?

[Control Group]

The 9th and 10th Amendments apply here.

You're kidding, right? Of the Bill Of Rights, the only amendment that isn't violated on a routine basis is the 3rd (and that only because we've let government finagle itself a way to maintain a standing army despite the fervent wishes of the founders).

And I'm pretty sure the only thing that could scare the powers that be more than a literal and honest interpretation of the 2nd would be a literal and honest interpretation of the 10th.

Oblig. Simpsons

[truthsearch]

Television announcer: Your cable television is experiencing difficulties. Please do not panic. Resist the temptation to read or talk to loved ones. Do not attempt sexual relations, as years of TV radiation have left your genitals withered and useless.

A phased approach would be better

[tchuladdiass]

Instead of the analog signals being cut at a certain date, I think a better approach would be to decrease the output power of the analog signal by, say, 20% a year over the course of 5 years. That way, people with existing sets won't be forced to suddenly buy new equipment. Those that don't upgrade will just get a gradually weaker signal. A weak signal will cause people to want to upgrade (or get a cheap digital -> analog converter box), where as a suddenly cut off signal will make for angry viewers.

Re:A phased approach would be better

[inajamaica]

Interesting thought...I always welcome a smooth transition. But it'll be sad and it will be infuriating. I don't know about everyone else, but I often have trouble receiving a channel well because it's signal is weak or because my antenna is not well placed. However, it's analog, so while the colors get screwed up or the audio fuzzes out a little, I can still view it & I can still understand the dialogue. But yikes...when we go digital? I'm going to see that inorganic noise made up of broken framerates, pixelated images, and ear-shattering screeches of the unearthly kind. This is why I am NOT a fan of the transition at all. It'll be like satellite, I assume...where you either get the channel, or you don't.

Re:A phased approach would be better

[kpainter]

Uh, what if you already have a weak signal? Wouldn't you be cut off and, even worse, NO VOUCHER?!!! Egads!!

This whole thing is stupid. Over the air TV sucks and has created a whole society of mind-numbed, moronic, robots.

Re:A phased approach would be better

[erice]

Or a different sort of phased:

5 or more years before analog broadcasts end, no more analog only sets can be sold.
2 years from the drop dead date, only pure digital sets are sold.

That way, most sets convert to digital through the natural replacement cycle. Further, new purchasers, who are generally more affluent, bear the brunt of the broadcast switch over.

Re:A phased approach would be better

[Chrononium]

If you have a digital modulation scheme worked out to function on the existing analog spectrum, it might simply not be possible. Several articles have pointed to the fact that we will reclaim more spectrum after the digital switchover, implying that the channel spacing and bandwidth is tighter -- analog would screw up the system (or digital would screw up the analog signals, as potentially multiple digital channels would fit into a single analog channel).

Remember that wireless equipment utilizes a fixed physical medium, one that everyone shares for better or worse.

Re:A phased approach would be better

[utexaspunk]

lol... nice! somebody mod parent up!

Re:A phased approach would be better

[Anonymous Coward]

When the transition is complete, ATSC will be broadcast on a subset of the UHF frequencies and IIRC it'll be on the frequencies (and channel spacing) currently used by channels 13-69. The spectrum for channels 2-12 and 70-whatever(89?) is going to be reclaimed by the FCC. That doesn't sound like much spectrum at first, but bear in mind that channels 2-12 cover a fairly wide range of frequencies: IIRC, all of FM radio occupies the space between channels 5 and 6, for instance.

Re:A phased approach would be better

[Insightfill]

I've noticed that TV signal quality is pretty poor in areas that used to be quite good. My original house as well as my past one were both about 15 miles from downtown Chicago, and both could (on a clear day) have line-of-sight with the Sears Tower. Twenty years ago you could watch TV with a roof antenna or rabbit-ears and get by, but now it's completely useless.

Question: has the noise-floor been raised, has the output from the stations dropped, or have my standards gone up after years of cable/satellite?

I know I've asked this in the past, but was wondering if anyone had any new ideas.

Re:A phased approach would be better

[smbarbour]

I commented on another post in this story already, but your mention of Chicago drove me to reply here as well. I live 60 miles from Chicago myself and while I have been able to get a signal from a second story bedroom from all of the broadcasters (except CBS) on the best set-top amplified antenna available from Wal-Mart, what was really interesting was that we could receive a local religious channel without ANY antenna plugged in.
 
We took that to be a sign of: "God wants you to get cable."
 
It had better reception without an antenna connected than any cable channel I have ever seen.

Re:A phased approach would be better

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait wait wait...
Some of us use our analog TVs to hook up to our Commodore 64s, Tandy Color Computers, and XBoxes
Don't force the market to stop selling analog TVs...let natural market economics take them off naturally.

If I need to, I'll buy a $200 to play with my XBOX

Re:A phased approach would be better

[SpiceWare]

KUHT digital in Houston is on channel 9, which isn't between 13-69.

Re:A phased approach would be better

[Anonymous Coward]

You work for Microsoft dont you.

Re:A phased approach would be better

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a temporary frequency assignment. They'll have to move before the cutover in 2009.

Good.

[AnswerIs42]

Because there is no way I am willingly going and buying MORE stuff just to watch TV. HD equipment is WAY overpriced. I have already looked into just a receiver so I can use my antenna.. the cheapest I have seen the set-top boxes is 350$ AFTER a 75$ rebate.

HD antenna's are as cheap as 15$ ... untill the receivers get that low.. I'll stay with analog.

Re:Good.

[kannibal_klown]

Because there is no way I am willingly going and buying MORE stuff just to watch TV. HD equipment is WAY overpriced.

It's been a few months since I even cared about this whole thing, but I thought they were talking about Digital signals, not HiDef Digital signals.

Ie, transmit the normal 480-line signals in a digital format as to take up a lot less bandwith. Then make availabile a set-top box that would receive the digital signal and send it to your ordinary TV. Finally, make it mandatory that all new non-HiDef TVs are able to decode the digital signal without the need of a set-top box.

This way, Joe Sixpack can buy a cheap Digital receiver for that 13" RCA TV sitting in his living room and watch Seinfeld reruns. And the next time he needs to buy a TV he can get a non-HiDef RCA that doesn't need a set-top box to descramble the digital signal.

That is, unless my memory is completely gone or they've changed things.

Re:Good.

[mcgett]

You can buy basic Over-The-Air (OTA) HDTV recievers for far less than $350 that you quoted. A quick check of the Best Buy site shows a Samsung T451 for $250 and Funai/Sylvania for $229 and a DirecTV H10 or H20 for $199 (these include an OTA tuner and you don't need to active the service to use it). Just after Thanksgiving RadioShack had a blow out on reciever for $99. When the US starts switching in masses in 2007/2008 there should be plenty of cheap receivers (likely without HDMI or DVI outputs) on the market for sub $100 for anyone that still needs to receive OTA signals.

Of course they would offer vouchers...

[Anonymous Coward]

...look at the howl on /. whenever anyone interferes with the "viewing pleasures" of this supposedly intelligent crowd. Now imagine the howl from Joe Sixpack if you cut his "opiate". The government knows on which side its bread is buttered.

And speaking of bread, remember - "bread & circuses".

The revolution will not be televised

[swm]

Cutting of televison to the poor could be just the thing to precipitate major political change in the United States.

Or at least major urban riots in the summer of '09.

Psst...

[Chris Acheson]

We are the unwashed masses. Well, okay, some of us are the washed masses.

Re:Psst...

[Cro Magnon]

We are the unwashed masses

I am NOT a "mass"!

TV vouchers

[SilverspurG]

I don't want to be cynical but, what with the sons and daughters of the ruling class not really needing to hold any job until they can be anointed to an executive position, it's probably easier for them to qualify for TV vouchers than people whose every child is slaving away at age 14. Who has more IRS income? I'd love to be rich and be able to support my offspring so that they can qualify as poor. What a scam.

At a very simplified level that's a perfect description of how it's done.

Re:TV vouchers

[sonofagunn]

Um, 14 year olds don't have IRS income. In both cases, the *parents* income is what counts. After 18, then you have a point. But I don't think anyone with rich parents is going to let a free TV affect their career decisions. They probably already have a nice TV. I too, hope to one day make enough money that I can provide a good life for my family. Isn't that pretty much everyone's goal? Does it make us bad people?

Re:TV vouchers

[orgelspieler]

You're right, sort of. The IRS says that dependents must file a return in most situations. However it is the responsibility of the parent or guardian to make sure the form gets filled out if the dependent cannot do it. 14 is the magic number, though. Under 14, the parents have the option to file the child's income as theirs (in most cases). Of course it's hard to tell from the article, but maybe the vouchers will only be "per household" or something.

OK. I looked it up. See S.1932 `SEC. 159. (Does anybody know how to link to THOMAS?) It looks like there will be a two-per-household limit. So they don't really seem to have the poorest of the poor in mind with this law anyway. Of course, the upper class (and technophiles) will probably already have their TV sets converted to digital anyway by the time 2009 comes around. Besides, it's probably not worth a silver-spooners time to file for a measly $40.

No matter what they decide, I have a real problem with the government telling the press what formats they can and cannot use. I know they've done it for ... well forever, but I still don't like it. If they are allowed to tell TV stations they can't use analog, what's to keep them from telling newspapers that they can't use paper anymore? I know it sounds far fetched now, but what about in 50 years? I understand that it's ostensibly for the public good, but not using paper would also be for the public good.

Another thing that bothers me is that this will probably end up being a windfall for the DAC manufacturers. Now that they know people will get a $40 voucher, they can put an extra $40 in their pricing. As long as there is plenty of competition, this may not happen, but it's certainly easy to see that situation. I'd like to say the invisible hand of free market would reduce prices, but with the government forcing acceptance of the technology, all invisible hand theories are out the window.

Doing the math.

[Caspian]

$1.5 billion, divided by-- what-- around 280,000,000 USians? That's five bucks a head. If everyone takes an average of one (you KNOW some cheaters will take more than one), that's five bucks per.

If 10% of the population takes one, that's $50 per.

If 5% of the population takes one, that's $100 per.

If 1% of the population takes one, that's $500 per.

Ah, but this is naive math. That's $1.5 billion for the whole program. I'm sure at least half will get gobbled up by the elaborate system they set up to distribute these things. Retraining, printing forms, programming databases, printing vouchers, negotiating with retailers...

Any bets on how this $1.5 billion will actually filter down to the little guy?

Re:Doing the math.

[SilverspurG]

Any bets on how this $1.5 billion will actually filter down to the little guy?

The cost will be used to justify an increase in taxes and fees related to broadcasting. That will cause the cost of advertising on those broadcast channels to increase. That will cause the cost of products to increase.

The little guy will see a higher price on everything from peanut butter, to gasoline, to media. Likely insurance costs will go up, too, and investments from little guy investors will see a lower return.

Re:Doing the math.

[dangitman]

Any bets on how this $1.5 billion will actually filter down to the little guy?

Like in one of those porno movies. What do they call it? Golden Shower. Yeah, that's it.

Re:Doing the math.

[CommiePuddin]

$1.5 billion / ($40 voucher value * 2 vouchers per household) = 18.75 million households affected.

Re:Doing the math.

[slashname3]

Not every person in the country will be immediately affected by the shutdown of analog broadcasts. The vast majority of people use cable. Cable companies will continue to send out analog signals, those users will not have to change anything. Only the much smaller group that use antennas to get a signal will be affected by the change. They will need to get a converter box to continue using the old TV set.

But on one point you are correct, the vast majority of those funds will not go to the people directly affected. Most of that money will go to some congress critter or his lobbyist or another special interest that is being paid off. very little will go to convert boxes used by those that don't have a choice.

Look for an up surge in criminal activity once this change over happens.

Re:Doing the math.

[orgelspieler]

I'm trying to figure out where the $1.5B in the article came from. The copy of the bill on THOMAS says $990MM; that's still 12,375,000 housholds (at least). As of the 2000 Census, there were 105,480,101 occupied household, though. So that means that means somewhere between 1 in 8 and 1 in 4 households will get vouchers. Then I looked at the other number in TFA. Only 20MM of the 70MM non-D TVs aren't hooked up to cable or satellite. If that's the case the $990MM will be more than enough to get boxes for all of us. I'll be interested to see if they keep people from getting vouchers if they subscribe to cable.

Talk about missing the point

[daveschroeder]

This isn't about "digital cable".

Going digital is the number one thing that will finally force major investment in symmetrical broadband, IP multicast, and other technologies that will appear extremely attractive for content providers. And guess what? Everyone else can piggyback on those networks.

What kind of networks do you think will be used for transmission? Magic?

Think "IP".

Not to mention that going digital will actually be a net gain for us, from an economic standpoint (spectrum auction) and otherwise (innovative use of said spectrum).

Re:Talk about missing the point

[hobbit]

symmetrical broadband [appears] extremely attractive for content providers

Really? How do you figure that?!

Re:Talk about missing the point

[bguzz]

First off, three little letters: D, R, M.

Secondly, what incentive would content providers have to back symmetric anything? The content industry needs to move advertising to viewers as quickly as possible. I'd be willing to bet that making sure everyone has enough bandwidth to express themselves and create independent content is fairly low on their list of priorities. What technology would achieve content providers' primary goal most effectively? A symmetric 10Mbit pipe into every home? No. Digital cable? Yes.

This is very much about digital cable. It's about digital over-the-air, it's about everything you do in analog, only it's sharper, has MPEG compression artifacts, and it's more expensive.

You can

[wiredog]

Join the Army and get the GI Bill. There's only one minor downside...

Re:You can

[monstermagnet]

Perhaps "...and a free TV!" is precisely what the GI Bill needs to boost recruiting.

Re:You can

[sjlutz]

The GI Bill doesn't pay for college, it's a reimbursment program. Trust me, I fell for it too. If you don't have the money to pay tuition, it does nothing for you since you do not get reimbursed until after you finish a sememster.

Re:You can

[tchuladdiass]

But, you can get a student loan, then use the reimbursement to pay for that.

Re:You can

[scuba964]

That's Major Downside to you, Private.

Not this shit again...

[voice_of_all_reason]

Some of that spectrum will go to first responders -- police, fire and public safety officials -- so they can better communicate with one another. Breakdowns in emergency communication slowed the response to the September 11 terrorist attacks and Hurricane Katrina. New spectrum should help.

Translation: Let us take away your free TV, give all the spectrum space over to private companies who will collude to drive up prices, and spend the profits on pork... otherwise the terrorists win!

Ramrod

[Stumbles]

'Yes, the very same federal government that is cutting back on college loans and food stamps will soon be issuing TV vouchers' - $1.5 billion ........

That's just insane and shows how corrupt and willing our government really wants to suckle the business world teat. Actually I place the blame at the foot of the FCC.... a totally corrupt and bought and paid for government organization by business that is not the least bit interested in serving the public. Well they are so long as what the public wants is in line with what business wants. Otherwise the public and tax payers lose.... again.

Vouchers? Dumb, dumb, dumb

[SHP]

If you can't afford to buy a TV, then how can you afford to buy anything advertised on it? In which case, why would you need one? I suppose the broadcasters want to pad their viewership numbers to keep ad rates up, but marketers know demographics, so that's unlikely to work. This sounds alot like the free magazine subscriptions we all get so the publishers can sell ads.

I'm already receiving digital "broadcasts"

[Chris Acheson]

Anything worth watching is on BitTorrent or eDonkey. A whole lot of things not worth watching are available too (Jackass comes to mind).

TV news on DVD? (was) Why is this a problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell us why we should be waiting for the news or forecast to be released on DVD.

Perhaps if all you are watching is Fox or TBN that would not be noticed but
we ain't all rigth wing nutcases.

Re:TV news on DVD? (was) Why is this a problem?

[metamatic]

You shouldn't watch TV news at all. It's completely useless. Read a newspaper, or ideally several newspapers. You can even get real newspapers via the Internet, rather than having to read crap like USA Today.

Re:TV news on DVD? (was) Why is this a problem?

[jahudabudy]

I disagree, TV news is not completely useless. It is, unfortunately, where a lot of people get their ideas about the world and what is going on in it. Watching just a few minutes/week of various programs (local, Fox News, CNN, BBC America for me personally) can give you a (depressingly) accurate gauge of public opinion.

But yeah, as far as actually educating yourself on current events goes, stick to the Internet.

Re:TV news on DVD? (was) Why is this a problem?

[fimbulvetr]

You forgot The Daily Show!!!!

The only source for news. Although, it's generally available on bittorrent.

Re:TV news on DVD? (was) Why is this a problem?

[metamatic]

Yeah, I meant TV news was useless as a way of getting actual news. As a clue to what ignorant morons think, it's fairly useful. I just don't have much time for ignorant morons, and feel that there's not much point knowing what they think if I can't do anything about it.

Rate of growth is also bogus

[Anonymous Coward]

If you do not factor in inflation. And with higher ed. costs increasing at double digit percentage rates, to stay even with inflation grants and loan programs must also show double digit growth just to keep pace.

Ask instead why we need to spend approx. 50% of the budget on military spending when there was a temendous 'build down' in the 90's. Someone is profiting and it is not students, the elderly, the unemployed or anyone else in a disadvantaged position.

Would $40 really help your college fund?

[bobalu]

>I'd rather go to college than watch TV
Great, do that and see if it can help your reading skills.

They're not giving you help to buy a digital TV, they're giving $40 for a converter box so you can watch a crappy old analog TV with a nice digital signal. Would $40 really help your college fund?

Re:Would $40 really help your college fund?

[drinkypoo]

Two vouchers covers the cost of a textbook. I'd rather buy a hopeful student a textbook than help two fatass couch potato welfare-baby vidiots purchase digital television tuners. Helping park people on their respective asses in front of their respective televisions does not improve society. In fact, it makes it worse in basically every way.

Re:Would $40 really help your college fund?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, they should tie the voucher to college attendance. Only people going to college would get a voucher -- might boost education levels, if people really want their TV so much :-)

Re:Would $40 really help your college fund?

[Yartrebo]

How much are these converters really going to cost? I cannot even find HDTV converter boxes on ebay. The HDTVs are all selling for well over $1,000, and many are only "HDTV ready", which I believe means supply your own box. I really doubt we'll have $40 converters before 2009

Re:Would $40 really help your college fund?

[Shagg]

How much are these converters really going to cost? I cannot even find HDTV converter boxes on ebay. The HDTVs are all selling for well over $1,000, and many are only "HDTV ready", which I believe means supply your own box. I really doubt we'll have $40 converters before 2009

HDTV and digital television are not the same thing. The $40 converter box is not an HDTV tuner.

TV != evil

[pr0nbot]

Uncle Sam's solution? 'Yes, the very same federal government that is cutting back on college loans and food stamps will soon be issuing TV vouchers' - $1.5 billion to help U.S. households buy new digital TV equipment."

I think this undervalues television. It is a means of communication that reaches more citizens than any other. Yes, education is more important, and yes, there's lots of crap on the telly, but TV is still an important medium by which ideas and knowledge can be disseminated.

Re:TV != evil

[tompaulco]

TV is still an important medium by which ideas and knowledge can be disseminated.
I'm sure all of the people at home on welfare are busy watching Public Television so they can better themselves, and not some drivel like daytime Soaps or Oprah.

Re:TV != evil

[Cro Magnon]

TV is still an important medium by which ideas and knowledge can be disseminated.

*spews Coke on monitor*

I like TV for entertainment, but it's not much good for disseminating knowledge. If I want knowledge, I'll go online. TV normally disseminates propoganda, either from our govenment, or more often, the commercial sponsors.

Re:TV != evil

[pr0nbot]

I like TV for entertainment, but it's not much good for disseminating knowledge.

Entertainment is devoid of ideas and knowledge? Do you never watch documentaries? You don't watch the news? On September 11th, you turned on your radio to see what was going on?

Perhaps you really do watch only vacuous TV. Even if that's the case, that doesn't mean there isn't good programming out there too.

It's still a giveaway

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not base the cost on ongoing
used bandwidth in this spectrum to the
highest wholesale rate bidder?

   

That way we get billions forever.

That's the model for the companies
"buying" the spectrum. Why not get a
cut to perpetuity?

If the services suck, less subscribers,
less revenue.

The Gov might see mega-file-sharing in a whole
new light...

charliesmagic.com

Um, exactly where are these 70 million TV's to go?

[Anonymous Coward]

If in a short period of time, 70 million TV's are to be obsoleted, where are they to go? How big a land fill would be needed. Remember too, most of these TV's are recent and older models, just full of lead and other hazardous materials. Therefore, where and how and for how much $ are these TV's to be disposed of?

Would be best if we lost T.V.

[JohnnyGTO]

I mean how many productive YEARS of our live are lost, how many of us sink into poor health due to loss of exercise and just think of the lost intenet surfing time gone all because of television?

Yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

Another "I haven't watched TV in 10 years" troll stating it like it's a badge of honor in a topic that it's barely relevant to. My day is fulfilled.

And I also got the gem addition of "it'll be out on DVD anyway." Genius! It's crap on TV until it comes on overpriced DVDs many months after its TV airing. And you WON'T be wasting time watching those DVDs, unlike watching TV.

And this got modded "Insightful?"

CorpGovMedia Propaganda Machine

[Cryofan]

Sounds like CorpGovMedia is getting nervous about what would happen if a bunch of Americans got cut loose from the propaganda machine for a while.
Who know what might happen? Heck, unpropagandized Americans might even decide that they need to hang a bunch of the elite.

I am DOWN for that shit!

Re:CorpGovMedia Propaganda Machine

[giorgiofr]

they need to hang a bunch of the elite.

That would be so mature and responsible. No wonder you're a sample of poor lowlife.

Re:CorpGovMedia Propaganda Machine

[Intron]

Maybe. But imagine the ratings! 25 share easy.

One More Thing...

[ajwillys]

One thing people seem to be forgetting about this whole TV mess, people are still buying new 'outdated' tv's. I wonder if that 70 million TV estimate is the current amount of outdated tv's or if it includes all the TV's that will be bought by the clueless consumer between now and then. The switch will be even more painful when the poor, elderly, etc... that just bought a new tv for Christmas 2008 finds out February 2009 that it is obsolete.

Re:One More Thing...

[LordSnooty]

The TV magically becomes unobselete if you buy a set-top box. Which is what the allocated funds will pay for, I believe. That's assuming digital TV works in the same manner over there as it does over here (Europe). The same process has already been announced in the UK, and the poor/elderly will be provided with vouchers for STBs.

Re:One More Thing...

[thogard]

I think the TV's they are talking about are the type that don't have any video inputs. There are more TV's in the US than people so 70 million of them would be a significant subset and even modern TV's don't come with digital tuners so this 70 million must be something very old. To make them work, it will require a set top box just like every one else, an modulator, maybe a 50 to 70 ohm adapter and a antenna that work at the right frequency range for digital.

Re:One More Thing...

[Yartrebo]

Clueless? A HDTV set costs major bucks. I won't even consider a HDTV set, regardless of whether or not NTSC is turned off or not, until the price is under $500 (and not $499.99 - if the tax brings it over $500, it's not under $500). And I also won't be purchasing one at any cost if it includes DRM which appears to be coming in the next batch.

Re:One More Thing...

[aesiamun]

I don't own a Digital TV.

I bought an analog TV back in 1996, a nice 28inch Panasonic CRT TV. I have Time Warner's Digital Cable and it's working fine...I just don't have the digital inputs.

Any TV with a COAX input will just need to use a set top box...and there isn't a NEW TV anywhere that doesn't have a coax input.

Re:One More Thing...

[amliebsch]

Digital != HD

Do not confuse the two.

If you're going to do this...

[Syberghost]

...do it right. Make a cheap-ass box that takes digital broadcast signals and converts them to NTSC letterboxed. If grandma wants to keep her ancient TV, let her look at nasty black bars. If she doesn't like nasty black bars, she can save up for a new TV.

The boxes shouldn't cost much, compared to buying everybody a new TV.

But what can a voucher buy?

[SoundGuyNoise]

I'll bet these vouchers are only good for "approved" digital sets, with DRM and broadcast flag enabled by default, for your "convenience", of course.

Retarded to switch the whole country at once.

[Scarabaeus]

It's a really retarded idea to switch the whole country, all TV station, at once to the new technology. Also, this does not render old TVs useless.

Look at europe, in germany they started with one big city after another, switched from analog to DVB-T (the world's alternative to the USA's ATSC) and sold little converterboxes for about 50 bucks. People hook that up to their old TVs and got 2 or 3 times as many channels with a cable-like quality.

This way you can do a slow transition of the transmitter and receiver technology, deploy it region by region and learn from the mistakes at the previous deployment.

Think of the landfills!

[cyberspittle]

Where will all those obsolete TVs go? To TV heaven? TV hell is more like it. I'm sure there will be a marklet for adapters, but a lot of people will finally fork up some money to buy a new set I'm sure.

All I need to know is which companies to buy stock in before the consumer frenzy begins!!!

FUD-FUD-FUD-FUD-FUD!

[Anonymous Coward]

What a load of overheated tripe. Three points:

1. The changeover does not affect anybody with a satellite dish. Their customers already have D/A receivers.

2. Anybody with cable just needs a digital converter box, which will be provided (probably for a fee--but most cable monopolies already charge a fee for plain old analog converter boxes).

3. That leaves people who just recieve OTA transmissions, which is a small percentage of the total TV audience, but still a big number; 20 million according to one quickly-Googled reference. With a market of 20 million available (most of them with more than one pre-digital TV), cheap digital converters are going to be as ubiquitous in 2008 as cheap DVD players are today.

This is going to be as much of a non-story as Y2K by the time "the day" rolls around...

Vote for a Change

[digitaldc]

'Yes, the very same federal government that is cutting back on college loans and food stamps will soon be issuing TV vouchers' - $1.5 billion to help U.S. households buy new digital TV equipment."

If you don't vote, then you really don't have a voice in our 'Democracy.' (unless of course you voted on a Diebold machine)

Ever wonder what would happen to our society if people couldn't watch TV for a month? I think the result would be very surprising.

Re:Vote for a Change

[engagebot]

"Ever wonder what would happen to our society if people couldn't watch TV for a month? I think the result would be very surprising." I'm afraid i wouldn't be surprised at all. I live less than an hour from New Orleans.

Re:Vote for a Change

[greylion3]

I heard about a long-lasting black-out some years ago - apparently, there was a baby-boom 9 months later..

Re:Um, exactly where are these 70 million TV's to

[cyberspittle]

I think they go to Asian landfills wher children pry off the heavy metal with their bare hands for resale. That's why us people in California import electricity from other states, so that California remains beautiful.

oh well least the seeds will be good in 2009

[Anthrox]

YA finally in 2009 seeds for bitorrents will be heaps high. millions?

mostly everyone has a computer and they will turn that into there tv most pc these days can output to them tvs fine

create our own tv stations if there going to use the old tv channel as cheap broadband even better more seeders heheheeh

also i like to see a huge TV wall built with them tv's would be cool 10,000 tvs to a wall

but yeah it is stupid relly digtal tv doesnt work that well here in Australia it works great in the citys but in the small outback towns it doesnt really work well and why setup a tower for about 100 ppl in the middle of no where?

also digtal tv thing interfere with the signal aswell like try turning on foot massager it stuff it up

also how long are these new digital tvs going to last the good old analog tv's work for 10-20 years LCD and Plasma last for about 5years then fade it great where becoming a disposable socity

what next the the plasma tv with the movie built into it that can be view only once then it blows up

P.S sorry about the english they stack my techer to give people free digtial tv's

Government of the TV, by the TV and for the TV

[Zhe Mappel]

There isn't even the slightest irony in the US government ignoring social priorities in favor of supplying better TVs. TV is the lever in fifty years of social control, and nobody in power wants his hand pried lose.

The analog-to-digital crisis--nothing that requires emergency expenditures of billions is not a crisis--points up TV's supremacy in American life. Those screens dare not go blank, even for a moment. It is from TV that Americans take proper instruction in the backstabbing rituals of the I Got Mine society ("reality TV"), learn to fear the system's guardians (cops and courtroom dramas), routinely covet what they can't afford (advertising) and get hallucinatory reassurance from square-jawed automatons ("news"). For the dwindling few who still watch such things, it's also where the marionette-in-chief periodically appears on glistening guide wires to rattle off his sermons.

If Congress didn't help lift the declining middle and growing Wal-Mart classes into the digital age, there'd be trouble. You can't run a nation into debt servitude, steal its liberties, mire it in futile (and feudal) distant wars, corrode its health and environment, leave it to drown in natural disasters, and force it to work longer hours all while presiding over historical levels of official corruption if you also hide the electronic teat. Baby, as every momma knows, wants milk.

Re:Government of the TV, by the TV and for the TV

[TheSync]

You'll be glad to know that during the Berlin analog TV turn-off, the government social security agencies purchased 6,000 DTV converter boxes for low-income residents. See, it isn't just the U.S. that is TV-crazy.

Re:Government of the TV, by the TV and for the TV

[Cryofan]

LOL! Excellent!

From They Live! ...our impulses are being redirected. We are living in an artificially induced state of consciousness that resembles sleep ...the movement was begun eight months ago by a small group of scientists who discovered, quite by accident, these signals being sent through television... ...the poor and the underclass are growing. Racial justice and human rights are nonexistent. They have created a repressive society and we are their unwitting accomplices... ...their intention to rule rests with the annihilation of consciousness. We have been lulled into a trance. They have made us indifferent, to ourselves, to others, we are focused only on our own gain. We ha... ...please understand, they are safe as long as they are not discovered. That is their primary method of survival. Keep us asleep, keep us selfish, keep us sedated... ...they are dismantling the sleeping middle class. More and more people are becoming poor. We are their cattle. We are being bred for slavery. The revolution... ...we cannot break their signal, our transmitter is not powerful enough. The signal must be shut off at the source. We have.....

Re:Government of the TV, by the TV and for the TV

[DJCF]

Consider the good.

You're completely right, of course. We are nothing but slaves, worse is that our prison captains are our equals. Dare to speak out against the government, as is your right as demanded by the Consitution, and you are branded a terrorist -- not by the CIA, but by your own neighbour. ("I think we should just trust the president in every decision he makes," Britney Spears told CNN, "and we should just support that, and be faithful in what happens." -- and in that simple sentence, she did more to condemn the American way of life than Bin Laden could ever have dreamed of doing.)

But consider the good. Look at the cage, the walls are guilded gold, the prison food hors' dourves and caviar. If, when I die, everyone in the world enjoys this level of servitude, I shall die a happy man.

As I write this there are people dying in there hundreds and thousands in Columbia, Iraq (today was the deadliest day since the election), Zimbabwe. In Iran 16-year-old girls are stoned for premarital sex. In Pakistahn, it's worse and 14-year olds are stoned as punishment for being raped. Hutus are fighting Tutsis near Liberia and Tanzania, in North Korea people are starving by the millions.

And we have the audacity to sit here on slashdot and complain.

Re:Government of the TV, by the TV and for the TV

[SilverspurG]

Look at the cage, the walls are guilded gold, the prison food hors' dourves and caviar

Some people get that guilded golden cage. Others of us are given a few bare walls and threatened to be evicted into the cold darkness outside (where the barbarian hordes are howling for our blood) if we don't agree to be beaten for sport by the people living in the golden cages. Living in a golden cage becomes boring and soon a source of entertainment is necessary. That's why there are whipping posts outside of each bare cell but no whipping posts outside of the golden cages.

As I write this there are people dying in there hundreds and thousands

The swallows of Africa don't care much about the swallows in Europe. They only see the height of the trees in their own area. There's nothing wrong about that.

And we have the audacity to sit here on slashdot and complain

I'd be at work but I'm not enough fun to beat anymore. I was fired because they grew tired of beating me. Eviction isn't that far off. I hope the barbarians aren't too hungry.

Re:Government of the TV, by the TV and for the TV

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, its not the goddamn governments FAULT that there are disasters, and its not their JOB to babysit people who are hit by them.

Pick one: Either the government is too involved with our lives (which you seem to think, based on your conspiracy-theorist level of paranoia) or they need to get more involved (which you also seem to think, based on your comment about FEMA and disasters.)

Personally, I hail from the latter school of thought. If I get hit by an earthquake (I live near a major fault line, we are 'due' for a 7.0 or greater) I dont expect the government to be here giving me money to rebuild my house. It has NEVER been the governments job to babysit disaster victims.

This is not to say that being charitable is a bad thing. To the contrary, if more people would donate to charities and spend less money on things like digital TVs, (Im also anti-tv) maybe we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place? In any case, charity belongs to the private sector, NOT THE GOVERNMENT. At least not in the USA, where we aren't socialist. (yet.)

This bullshit makes me want to stop paying taxes.

Re:Government of the TV, by the TV and for the TV

[Anonymous Coward]

It is from TV that Americans take proper instruction in the backstabbing rituals of the I Got Mine society ("reality TV"), learn to fear the system's guardians (cops and courtroom dramas),

lol

yes, Matlock exists mainly to teach me to "fear the system's guardians"... and don't get me started on the sinister conspiracy behind Magnum P.I.

Re:Government of the TV, by the TV and for the TV

[Anonymous Coward]

Other places are just as terrible as us! That makes us not so terrible!

wait...

Bogus...

[Anonymous Coward]

First, we should point out some fallicies in your assumptions:

"Think multiple antennas. Multiple friends of mine have multiple antennas".

There's no difference in the antenna required, whether you're tuning an analog signal or a digital one. I If you need multiple antennas to receive DTV broadcasts, then that means your need multiple antennas to recieve the existing analog ones. Now, early ATSC tuners were plagued by multipath interference (primary signal and an "echo" off a building or mountain that arrives a fraction of a sec later), but new generation tuners have addressed that.

"digital signals simply do not travel as far".

What - do they weigh more and just fall short? Of course not. The majority of DTV broadcast transmissions are not full power just yet. Lots of broadcasters are waiting for the FCC to approve their new DTV full-power licenses. Of those that have the licenses, they're waiting on power amplifier upgrades. Remember, there was lots of spectrum juggling done so that the new DTV broadcast channels didn't interfere with existing analog broadcasters in the area.

Once all the transmissions are up to full power, the vast majority of problems will go away. And contrary to what you may think, full power will ususally be less than the old analog signal power - digital doesn't require the same amount of power. Analog requires a lot of brute force to achieve an acceptable S/N ratio...

Some quick and dirty math...

[paco3791]

Ok so the population for the USA right now is estimated at almost 300 million people. So if we do some quick math that comes out to $5 per person. I suppose you could try and do some thing per household but I'm not really sure how that would work since most households have more than one TV anyway.

Since new TV's capable of receiving digital signals are not going to come down in price THAT significantly over the next 3 years, I'm betting this is a voucher program for D to A converter boxes not TV's.

Bread and Circuses

[blueZhift]

The govt has no choice but to provide TV vouchers. There are just too many people out there (many who voted for the current administration) who would be mighty pissed if they couldn't watch TV anymore. Joe Sixpack, NASCAR Dads, and Soccer Moms must have their bread and circuses otherwise they might be inclined to revolt. I wish this were just a joke, but I guess the importance of entertainment just tells us something more about the nature of the human spirit.

Re:Bread and Circuses

[bill_mcgonigle]

Joe Sixpack, NASCAR Dads, and Soccer Moms

Those groups typically have at least basic cable. Otherwise you'd miss, respectively, ESPN, ESPN, and Martha Stewart.

We're talking about the poor, indigents and luddites. People who could probably use a $40 voucher and maybe paid that much for their TV second-hand.

RenaissanceDOT

[Anonymous Coward]

"80 years ago people were expected to read Shakespear in the 4th grade, now we (MAYBE) get into it by high school. We've been dumbed down folks, and if you don't think TV played a large part in that, well, you watch too much TV..."

Or read too much Slashdot.

I get HDTV from a wire loop

[metamatic]

I have DirecTV, but their HD package is over $10 a month and only has 1 channel in it that I'd be interested in watching, and I'd need a new DirecTiVo, so I skip it.

Instead, I have an $8 RCA wire loop antenna. Since I live within 10km of the broadcast antennas, that suffices to get all the local channels. Of those, the only one with anything worth watching is PBS. "Family Guy" and the like on Fox HD actually look worse than regular DirecTV Fox. In fact, even Fox HD shows look pretty bad compared to NBC, ABC and CBS; and unfortunately, on those three channels with the best HD, there's nothing worth watching.

In my case, the decoder is built in to the TV, rather than a separate box.

Re:I get HDTV from a wire loop

[snooo53]

That's funny that you mention that, I have the exact same complaint. Family Guy does indeed look worse in HD than standard. Jittery lines seems to be the main problem.

It must be due to the compression, which is odd because other cartoon shows seem to look fine. I have also noticed that other fox shows seem to be lower picture quality than other HD shows, but still better than standard.

Re:I get HDTV from a wire loop

[metamatic]

The Simpsons also looks like crap. However, it has also become crap at this point, so I've stopped watching it.

Fox is only doing 720p, whereas CBS/NBC/ABC do 1080i. PBS is also 720p, and their source material seems to vary a lot in quality, but it's still better than Fox. I'm wondering if the local Fox channel (KTBC Austin TX) is particularly bad.

I was also dismayed to see the amount of new programming on the commercial stations that's letterboxed. PBS seem to be ahead of them, bizarrely enough, perhaps because they buy most of their content from the UK, which has been widescreen for years.

Re:I get HDTV from a wire loop

[snooo53]

There's a lot of people that argue that 720p is better for various reasons.

My thinking is it's gotta be compression related specifically affecting cartoons at 720p; all the HD PBS shows I've seen look amazing, but then again, most are slow moving nature or documentary scenes.

Re:I get HDTV from a wire loop

[metamatic]

My TV has 720p as its native resolution. Nevertheless, CBS 1080i looks far better than Fox 720p.

Worse for "first responders"

[Anonymous Coward]

Brilliant: more spectrum = more possible frequencies for emergency use. Now there will be even less of a chance for emergency workers to be on the correct frequency.

I guess it takes an EE (me) to see this correctly: how many hundreds of millions of cell phones do we have on this planet, all sharing the same narrow RF band???

Sure, they're not all in the same geographic location, but sit in a major urban traffic jam, look around at the thousands of people all talking on their cells, and you know there is plenty of room in the band.

I recently took a trip through hours of wilderness driving and my cell never had less than 3 bars on the antenna signal strength.

The current analog radio and TV bands work- please don't fix them! Please put all this time, money, effort, and brilliant ideas into fixing things which ARE broken, like energy consumption, cancer research, consistency in emergency communications, etc.

Thank you.

Re:Worse for "first responders"

[Jeremy Erwin]

I can't really tell whether "first responders"-- scratch that: "emergency workers" has less of a orwellian feel-- are cited because they happen to have political cachet after 11 September, or whether there is a serious need for such things. Certain frequencies, however, are better at penetrating reinforced concrete. Perhaps it is those frequencies which are to be given to emergency workers.

The current NTSC spectrum is divided into 6 MHz channels. However, interference concerns generally prohibit adjacent channels from being used. The ATSC scheme, however. is not so prone to interference, and adjacent channels are possible. Thus, it is possible to pack all the stations in a market into a much smaller slice of spectrum-- and the surplus can be sold off once this realignment is complete.

The current emergency channels are similarly constrained by obsolete methods of spectrum allocation.

Anyone mention the obvious?

[XMilkProject]

I didn't see this rather obvious fact in a post yet, but people keep debating the government spending the 1.5 billion, so I guess I'll go ahead and state the obvious...

If you RTFA you will see that the government will be selling off the spectrum used by analog tv for an estimated 10 billion dollars... Hence, spending a small portion of that to facilitate the switch still leaves them with a 8.5 BILLION DOLLAR profit.

So can we please not have any more stupid posts about increased spending, when this deal is entirely designed to make money, not spend it. 8.5 billion will be made almost immediately, with a likely increase in other technologies boosting the economy in the long run as a direct effect.

On a side note, I'd love to see any conversation about this move to digital being driven, in part, by the ease of applying DRM to a digital signal.

Re:Anyone mention the obvious?

[Anonymous Coward]

It still doesn't make up for the fact that I have to buy a new freaking TV along with every other freaking person that still intends to watch the tube in the US!

Re:Anyone mention the obvious?

[TheQuantumShift]

Great, we can fund the "War on Terror" for what, 12 minutes with that? I'm all for the Government making money, I just have no faith that money will ever be spent wisely.

Re:Anyone mention the obvious?

[XMilkProject]

Well, assuming you still have the same TV in 3 years, and you do all your tv watching on Over-The-Air stations (no cable or sat) then you will have to get what they are calling a 'digital converter box', which is essentially what we now refer to as an HD Tuner, but alot cheaper since it doesn't need the high quality output for your standard definition television.

Current AVerMedia already sells a nice HD Tuner for $90, with digital audio and component video, so I am MORE than confident that in the next few years, as the demand increases dramatically, that you will be able to get your digital converter box for a price within the $40 the government is offering you as a tradeoff for discontinuing your current service.

In fact, i'm quite confident that with the high demand for these things you'll likely find them cheaper than $40, which means you'll probably make a few dollars profit out of the deal and end up with much higher quality picture (and likely more channels)...

I just can't really see how you are getting a shabby deal.

And to go a bit off-topic, are there actually people who do significant TV watching via over-the-air analog broadcasts? Where I live I would be lucky to get 2 stations and they would be of almost unwatchable quality (OKC,OK) .... Do larger cities have more useful OTA broadcasts, so that there are actually people without cable/sat that are able to do tv-watching?

Re:Anyone mention the obvious?

[wooferhound]

- The rest of the spectrum will be auctioned off to the highest bidders
- probably tech companies. The sale of this valuable, scarce real estate
- is expected to bring in about $10 billion, maybe more. That will help
- reduce the federal budget deficit.

Yeah right, I actually did Laugh Out Loud at this comment. They will spend it faster than they can get it !

Re:Anyone mention the obvious?

[Hatta]

Where I live I would be lucky to get 2 stations and they would be of almost unwatchable quality (OKC,OK)

Where I live (omaha NE) I am lucky to get 2 stations of unwatchable quality, and I'd still be pissed if they went off the air. Pretty much all the TV I watch is the news in the morning to get the weather/traffic situation. But just because it's one station for about half an hour once a day doesn't mean it's not important. I'd be a fair bit more put out if I lost that than you would be if you lost your half dozen movie channels.

Re:Anyone mention the obvious?

[slashname3]

Are you so frigging naive to think that that $8.5 billion hasn't been spent already by your congress critter? They salivate and wet themselves just thinking about getting a portion of that pie. About the only thing you can count on is that government virtually never leaves a penny unspent and when they do it is a major over sight on their part. Even the money ear marked for vouchers will be raided. Very few of the people that money should help will ever see it. The congress critters, lobbyists, and other special interests will get their hands into that money as well and consume as much as they can before it ever gets to the people it was suppose to help.

The DRM part of it is going to be legislated once the infrastructure is in place. That will result in major battles all across the Internet as hackers break the systems and provide methods to get around DRM systems. But again this will not affect large numbers of uses since most of them use cable services. Until cable providers are forced to go all digital DRM flags will be easy to get around, just use the standard analog signals provided by the cable companies. That is what I intend to do since that works just fine with my mythtv system.

Re:Anyone mention the obvious?

[ipfwadm]

And to go a bit off-topic, are there actually people who do significant TV watching via over-the-air analog broadcasts?

I don't get cable or satellite, and where I am (Rochester, NY) I can get ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, and PBS over the air. There are a couple others I can get of bad quality that I wouldn't watch anyway. Most of the stuff I watch is on those networks anyway, and I'm unwilling to pay $50+ a month for cable or whatever satellite costs nowadays. A number of people I know just have OTA TV too. No I'm not some bitter old man; I'm 25, and the people I know w/out cable or satellite are my age as well. And yes, I do make enough to afford it.

Re:Anyone mention the obvious?

[slim]

Well, assuming you still have the same TV in 3 years, and you do all your tv watching on Over-The-Air stations (no cable or sat) then you will have to get what they are calling a 'digital converter box', which is essentially what we now refer to as an HD Tuner, but alot cheaper since it doesn't need the high quality output for your standard definition television.

Current AVerMedia already sells a nice HD Tuner for $90, with digital audio and component video, so I am MORE than confident that in the next few years, as the demand increases dramatically, that you will be able to get your digital converter box for a price within the $40 the government is offering you as a tradeoff for discontinuing your current service.


Indeed. In the UK digital terrestrial set-top boxes are piled high in supermarkets and are getting cheaper all the time. (£29.99 example). They're also getting smaller and better (e.g. more responsive menus and EPG; built in DVR etc.)

If you can receive it, it's basically pretty stupid /not/ to buy a digital set top box in the UK, if you get a signal. The basic service is free. The one downside is that some people need their ariels improved, which can cost a bit.

This isn't HD (that's yet to come), but the receiver electronics aren't much different in any important ways (whereas the display equipment to show HD without downsampling is different in expensive ways).

"Shakspear"

[Acy James Stapp]

Shakespeare's name was spelled many different ways in Elizabethan times, even by himself.

http://shakespeareauthorship.com/name1.html

So any close spelling is really legitimate.

Re:"Shakspear"

[Busy]

Um, we're not in Elizabethan times anymore. That was actually one case of spelling nazi-ism that was appropriate, considering the poster was implying he was above the dumbed-down masses (otherwise how would he know they're dumbed down?), especially since he was using literature as an example. I'll admit it was a cheap shot, but not quite as cheap as emotional pleas like *it's all so sickening!* and *oh noes the evil rich!*

OTOH, I'm impressed that you knew that. I didn't. ;)

Welcome to the Crack Mansion

[dangitman]

Would sir like one's crack-pipe pre-warmed?

Re:Welcome to the Crack Mansion

[stinerman]

IIRC, its (assuming you were referencing Futurama):

Shall I pre-warm sir's crack-pipe?

Shadows of Max Headroom?

[British]

Okay, no comparison here. In the Max Headroom world, it's illegal to turn off your tv. But if this converter(great, my entertainment center is filled to capacity already) is what I need to watch the Edison Carter show or Wacketts, then I'll do it. Hey, maybe I can use that dusty s-video jack on the back of my existing TV since my stereo won't(unless its just for DVD).

Value

[PacketScan]

1.5 billion dollars over 70 million Tvs.
1,500,000,000 / 70,000,000 = 21.43 (rounding).
I don't like the idea. The students and samilies need the money more than a Tv Owner.

Re: ! increasing as much as planned != cutting bac

[TheDefenistrator]

Can we get dictionary voutchers for the parent?

Or you can...

[BigDork1001]

... join the Air Force, get the same GI Bill and have a lot better chance of not getting shot at.

Mod parent up!

[khasim]

Nice example!

Remember, RIAA wants to patch the analog hole...

[Anonymous Coward]

So we may as well rule out the digital to analog converter to keep the old televisions around.

Re:domestic TV manufacturing industry

[tomhudson]

What "domestic TV manufacturing industry"?

Zenith was the last US-based manufacturer, and they closed their last US plant a couple of decades ago.

So, ? Here's the list:

• Dell
• Fujitsu
• Hitachi
• JVC
• NEC
• Panasonic
• Phillips
• Pioneer
• Toshiba
• Samsung
• Sony

So, who does Dell buy their flat panels from? Some other member of the "US Domestic TV Industry" ...

Next you'll be talking about the "US Domestic DVD Player Industry".

clarification of some misunderstandings

[mlksys]

> But managing this transition -- which will render about 70 million TV
> sets obsolete -- will be not be easy. Nothing is, when the federal
> government gets involved. Indeed, Congress will soon have to revisit
> this issue, to clean up this mess it has created.

Continued use of analog TV will require a set top box. Some
90% of TV viewers already use a set tob box for pay TV.

> But for consumers with one of those 70 million sets -- many of whom are
> likely to be poor, elderly or uneducated, being forcibly switched from
> one technology to another will be a nightmare.

I dont know about 70 million. I do remember seeing statistics
that said 10% of TV viewers only receive over the air broadcasts.

> Once TV stations switch to digital transmission, they will return to the
> government a big chunk of the radio spectrum they currently use to
> transmit their analog channels.

Not exactly. The transition will "free up" a portion of the
current spectrum allocated to broadcast TV. This is possible
because Digitial TV channels in an area can be on adjacent
channels unlike Analog TV. This allows more efficient use of
spectrum. (Even more interesting is that depending on what
kind of digital encoding is being used a given channel allocation
can have multiple subchannels broadcast at the same time.)

Broadcasters are allocated a new channel for digital TV that
is the same bandwidth as their old analog channel, and they
eventually have to release their analog TV channel when the
transition is complete. The freed up spectrum will be used
for other wireless applications.

> The difficulty, of course, is that the analog broadcast system will then
> be shut down -- which will leave most of today's TV sets unable to
> receive a signal over the air.

Continued use of an analog TV will require a set top box.

> To avoid a consumer revolt, Congress has set aside about $1.5 billion to
> smooth the transition. Owners of outmoded TV sets will be eligible for
> two vouchers, worth $40 each, to help buy converter boxes that will
> enable today's analog TV sets to receive digital signals.

This is stupid as noted in many other comments posted.

> The nightmare scenario is that people who depend on free, over-the-air
> TV for news and entertainment will lose their access, or have to pay
> more for it, so that the rest of us can get faster service on our
> Blackberries and ESPN on our cell phones.

If you depend on TV for news and entertainment you have
a much bigger problem.

only on /.

[the computer guy nex]

"Forget college, forget healthcare, we need radio bandwidth and tax cuts for the richest to help fight the terrorists."

Anyone else interested in seeing the person that actually modded this +5 Interesting? Lets not forget that In fact, the percentage of GDP spent on health is higher in the United States than in countries with government-provided health care and the government pays over 300 billion a year in grants towards college.

Heaven forbid we spent 1/200 of that on television. Crazy liberal whiners.

Re:only on /.

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps instead of rushing for your knee-jerk "liberal whiner" bashing, you could, uh, employ some basic reading skills and common sense.

1) Nobody modded that quote +5 Interesting. Nobody modded that quote anything. It appeared in the article summary, not in a mod-able post.

2) Even as it appeared in the article summary, it wasn't written by a slashdotter, but came from TFA.

more bull

[nexcomlink]

Pfft I never understood why you guys go and buy a antenna when a paperclip with a copper wire surrounding it does just as fine. Let's not forget it's portable/light weight and universal. Basically as long as I can see clearly what I have on my TV it's fine with me. Anyway I kind of like the way the government is spending it's money you know. Trying to get everyone using broadband now giving us vouchers for tv's. Because cartoons and football are just soooo much important than a education these days... FEMA has me fucked over for a good 3 months after Wilma. Louisiana destroyed because giving tv vouchers was just more important than giving the city better levee's or donate some of that money to the red cross. You used our tax dollars for "your" war. I wonder what's next really.

The vouchers ARE for converters!

[Anonymous Coward]

So, stop the moaning about obsoleting TVs themselves, and ixnay the suggestions for "inventing some kind of converter".

The part about the gov't giving out money for these makes me queasy, though. It's good for the economy (i.e.: advertisers) so we'll do it" doesn't wash with me.

BWilde

This is for the MPAA, not the goverment...

[neelm]

Once the signal is digital only, copy protection can be placed on the stream, and the DMCA can be used against anyone taping a show of the tv. Sure, this isn't going to stop anyone from copying a show, but it will give the MPAA/RIAA the laws it needs to go after whomever they want.

Look at the recent Sony DRM rootkit mess. Now imagine it being applied to to a digital broadcast stream - a "tv rootkit" installed just by watching the show.

Are you checking that your tin foil hat is digital signal safe? I would be...

Converter Box

[sxmjmae]

Why not just fund a project to build converter boxes. Convert the Digital signal that is coming into the house to an analog. To make it work nice just has it convert all the digital channels to an analog channel. That way I can still connect two or three TV set up to the cable line and not have a stupid digital cable convert box (that has a piss poor user interface) for every TV.
Right now I refuse to move to Digital because I would be decreased service and pay more. I would be forced to pay extra to have a digital box for every TV. I would need two digital boxes just for my TV that can do picture in picture. All the time the TV Company wants to charge me more for each digital outlet I have. What the hell I am I paying for?
When someone can invent a box that will covert all incoming digital channels to an Analog set I will buy it. I could just have the digital single come into the house and then I can choose what I do with it - what a novel idea!

The enviornmental perspective.

[alex_guy_CA]

Forgetting any other issues for a moment, the government mandated obsolescence of 70 million tv's is an environmental disaster. How many pounds of plastic and glass and metal are just going to get hauled to a landfill? Let alone the low end estimate of 280 million pounds of lead. Below is a few paragraphs from the executive summary of "Poison PCs and Toxic TVs: E-waste Tsunami to Roll Across the US: Are We Prepared?" Found at http://www.svtc.org/cleancc/pubs/ppcttv2004execsum .htm/ FYI, I left in the parts about state laws for the conservative states rights crowd.

Discarded computers and televisions are hazardous wastes - and when dumped into landfills or improperly recycled, pose a hazard to the environment and human health. The cathode ray tubes (CRTs) in computer monitors, television sets, and other video display devices contain significant concentrations of lead and other heavy metals. The State of California affirmed that:

"...when discarded, CRTs are identified as hazardous waste under both federal and State law and are required to be managed in accordance with all applicable requirements, including generator, transporter and facility requirements." Source: California Department of Toxic Substances Control March 21, 2001, Letter to Materials for the Future Foundation

As a hazardous waste, the disposal of CRTs in California municipal solid waste landfills is prohibited. Additionally, collection, whether for recycling or disposal, must be regulated and permitted as a hazardous waste activity. Other states, including Massachusetts, Minnesota and Maine, have taken similar steps. In those states without specific landfill bans for CRTs, any non-residential CRT containing hazardous waste is banned from landfilling under national hazardous waste laws.

Each computer or television display contains an average of 4 to 8 pounds of lead. 13 The 315 million computers that became obsolete between 1997 and 2004 contain a total of more than 1.2 billion pounds of lead. Monitor glass contains about 20% lead by weight. When these components are illegally disposed and crushed in landfills, the lead is released into the environment, posing a hazardous legacy for current and future generations. Consumer electronics already constitute 40% of lead found in landfills. About 70% of the heavy metals (including mercury and cadmium) found in landfills comes from electronic equipment discards. These heavy metals and other hazardous substances found in electronics can contaminate groundwater and pose other environmental and public health risks.

worth a try, no more offtopic that parent (or GP)

[Thud457]

Never underestimate the lack of bandwith of a undispatched firetruck full of DEC-tapes ?

Not individually.

[khasim]

They're not giving you help to buy a digital TV, they're giving $40 for a converter box so you can watch a crappy old analog TV with a nice digital signal. Would $40 really help your college fund?

Not individually.

But put $1.5 billion more into scholarships and such and I can guarantee that more students will get a college education.

obsolete???

[Anonymous Coward]

..which will render about 70 million TV sets obsolete..

obsolete? why? suddenly their tubes will be unable to steer electrons? just get
a digital set-top box that CAN decode the digital signal and then send that
to the old analogue happy TV - via scart or coax. its what the rest
of the world are doing!

First heard of HDTV in 1987

[TheDoctorWho]

We were supposed to switch back then. 1990, 1994, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002(got my HD set), 2003, 2004, 2005 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2015. I'd expect by 2015 we will see a final date of 2017. Only to be followed by more dates of implementation.

Re:First heard of HDTV in 1987

[Zed2K]

Digital does not mean hdtv. Digital just means digital.

TV is an entitlement now?

[jridley]

F'in TV? We have a basic human right to bleed our brains out through our eyeballs now?
Sheesh. We can have people starving, we can underfund education, but we can't have people without their TV.

Bread and Circus-Crust and Riots.

[Anonymous Coward]

"As long as people are fat and happy, you can basically do whatever you want."

And geeks of course are "thin and miserable", and no one has been able to get anything past them.

Let me know when you all stop generalizing about the world, and we'll stop thinking of you all as garbage-smelling, T-shirt wearing, anti-social, pot-smoking, masturbating, momma-boys living in your cinder-block, Goodwill furnished, posters-of-long-dead-computers-on-the-wall, parents sunlight-deprived, sewer-backed-up, basement, hunched over your riced-up, hair-dryer-blowing, allowance-sucking, no-money-left-for-an-OS, getting-a-monitor-tan, computer.

The real reason for HDTVs delay is DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

The Copyright Industry is trying very hard to manipulate congress in to passing laws requiring DRM be added to the analog converters that will downgrade the digital signals into the analog streams that will add copyright restrictions and a watermark. They also want to force all analog devices to respects this DRM. This is why they have been dragging their feet on this change for so long. They want to undo the effects they feel VCRs and DVD recorders have had on their ability to charge for each and every single viewing of their content. It is not just P2P or piracy. They want no more copies made of games, fights, recent movies or anything they thing they can get an extra dime for period. No more giving a copies to grandma or saving a good movie or game for later. No more anything they do not want you to be able to do. When I hear them say, "We do not care about things like that or we would never do that!" How can I not laugh? Corporations are by their very nature's amoral money making machines. When there are no limits or the situation is made fluid they will always seek to maximize profits. Come on people think about it, it may take a little while but in the end they will want to charge you for each and every possible use of the content. How could they not, it would not make any sense.

Here is the rub. If you think about it, we grant them the privilege of transmitting into our homes, i.e. we grant them the right of passage. They get to show us ads they are paid for, they get relatively cheap access to the airwaves, FCC requirements that we be able to receive their content, and broad protection of their intellectual property rights. So they are at most paying a fraction of what these should costs and they get several special rights yet they still want us to pay more. Given they are paid and they get special rights, why should we be denied rights we already had before and in fact not be given more now that the ability exist with P2P to do so. I am so sick of the "It is their content do not watch it!!!" crowd. Exactly when did they get to own the airwaves, my tv, my viewing time, or get granted eternal rights to enter my property. We own or pay for those things and they belong to us. If they want to use them at all, I want my rights back and in fact I want more rights to their content. This is not the same as saying, I want to steal it. What I want in may ways is same special privileges they have to use our property and the low or no cast uses they themselves have been granted. I rarely hear the obvious counter to the "It is their content!!!" statement which is "It is our airwaves, our property, our tv, our country, and our choice so if we do not like it why do we not turn them off." Somehow, I think that might wake them up a but. Think about, "Sure you can use DRM, that will be $3.50B a year per channel payable to the property holders and people for the property rights and special privileges." They want us to pay, why shouldn't they?

Re:...shove them down coax to people's TVs

[name_already_taken]

If you wanted to, you could get in all 40 channels, decode all 40 of them in real time, output them as analog signals, modulate them to thier old frequencies and shove them down coax to people's TVs. It would be possible to do. Unfortunately, it is unlikely to be cost effective, since you'd need roughly 40 times the processing resources that a single-channel decoder would call for. 40 channels * 30 frames per second * 480 lines/frame * 640 pixels per line * 16 bits per pixel = 5.9 gigabits per second is a lot of data, and would need a lot of computing power.

Actually we already have business enterprises that do this type of thing quite profitably here in the USA and other countries. They're called cable television companies.

Once you amortize the cost of those 40 decoders over several users (say a few thousand or few hundred thousand), they're look quite cheap compared to the cost of maintaining the distribution wires.

Quit lying, Fisher

[Anonymous Coward]

hvfisher@hotmail.com

Air Force enlisted men are smarter than

[wiredog]

Army enlisted men. In the Army the officers salute as the privates head for the front. In the Air Force the enlisted men salute as the officers head for the front.

Re:Air Force enlisted men are smarter than

[Anonymous Coward]

In the Army the officers salute as the privates head for the front.

This isn't directly relevant, but one of the ruder thing an Army private can do is salute an officer while actually in a combat zone.

Symbolically, it means: "Hey snipers! Here's the guy to shoot!"

Re:Air Force enlisted men are smarter than

[meringuoid]

In the Army the officers salute as the privates head for the front. In the Air Force the enlisted men salute as the officers head for the front.

Now, if only there was a way we could fix it so that we all saluted while the George And Tony Show heads for the front...

Re:Vouchers? Dumb, dumb, dumb

[iamdaflash]

I live off the dollar menu you insensitive clod! And I would have never found my great job at wal-mart if it wasn't for the employee testimonial commercials they air.

It Was Never Free

[Nom du Keyboard]

millions of American households without cable or satellite access will lose free access to news and weather along with the rest of their broadcast fare.

WTF? It was never free. You had to buy the current generation television receiver to access this content. And TV's get cheaper every year. Now you'll just have to buy a new TV to access the new content. I don't see anywhere that they're about to start charging you to receive content over the public airwaves. Clearly the article poster did not think through their summary very well.

Please use DVB stateside !

[johnjones]

hey I know why dont we all use the same standard DVB digital Video Broadcasting

why not ?

regards

John Jones

Re:Please use DVB stateside !

[evilviper]

The question should really be why Europe decided to use a different standard than the US (as usual).

Vouchers for news

[Anonymous Coward]

People don't watch tv for news.

They watch it to be entertained.

The articles claims the government is worried about these people losing access to clips addressing the state of the country and whatnot, but these segments are presented for their visual value rather than newsworthiness anyway. The information in anything appearing on tv is nonexistent simply because its meant to be entertaining as a vehicle for advertisement. Those with obsolete television sets will be missing out on little if they lose their 'news access'.

73 million people without tv is 73 million people without a box to turn them into faceless numbers That Must Consume. Really, if the government 'abandons them', they'd find a way to watch or get tv anyway, but, if they somehow didn't, the balance of corporate advertising and consumerism would be upset in a way unacceptable to network execs and the industry at large.

That's why they'll offer vouchers for tvs and not additional assistance for loans. TV families buy a lot more than college students. 4 years of tv watching amounts to more money in the economy than one college degree.

People also trust their tv more than their government, church, union, and schools [statistically documented in the 1970s]. You can't take the tv away from them or they will riot.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't - GEE

[Nom du Keyboard]

we bitch when the government propose to help disadvantaged groups to maintain access to broadcast television

Gee, and did the government specifically help them buy them buy their first television? If not, why should it be expected to help them buy this new one? Enquiring minds, and all that jazz.

digital tv already introduced in belgium

[wALLe]

Our cable company telenet already enforced everybody to go digital. It just took away some channels and said if you want them back you have to buy a digibox (about 50 euro for the simple and 250 for the extended box, well you 'rent' it and after a couple of years its yours). This evolution is expected to continue into fase 2 where every channel will be digital. Strangely enough nobody really complains about it or atleast nothing is happening to support 'poor' families. Also anothe small remark, since this box does digital->analogue it's not necessary to throw away your tv, only if you want 'better than current analogue tv quality' you need to buy a new tv-set.

bah, who cares

[Zed2K]

"'Yes, the very same federal government that is cutting back on college loans and food stamps will soon be issuing TV vouchers' - $1.5 billion to help U.S. households buy new digital TV equipment."

The same student loans that kids use to buy cars, beer, and drugs instead of using for their education. The same food stamps that families use to buy things their kids don't need instead of good food to live on. $1.5 billion is a drop in the bucket compared to other things.

Would be nice if a story could be posted without the editorial in the actual story post. Leave that crap for the comments.

Big Brother...

[NukeDoggie]

I wonder if all this is to get us manditory telescreens like in 1984. Digital TV could have embedded outbound communications... Not to be totally paranoid, but they are forcing us right???!?

Same here

[ThinWhiteDuke]

Here in France, digital over-the-air TV was just launched last September. The analog signal is not supposed to be switched off before 2015 or so. Yet you can already buy a digital converter for euro59.90 or less in virtually every store. Those boxes just convert the digital signal received by your regular antenna into a signal readable by your regular TV.

We're using DVB-T here like most Restoftheworldians. AFAIK, North America adopted ATSC which uses a different modulation technique. Maybe that's the reason why simple converters don't do the work.

Re:Same here

[TheSync]

ATSC is not inherently harder to demodulate than DVB-T, in fact it is a bit easier, but only if you don't have multipath interference. Until this year, ATSC demodulators have had a rough time with multipath intereference, but now there are new chips that can handle it OK.

DVB-T uses COFDM which uses hundreds or thousands of carriers at different frequencies that change amplitude slowly. On the other hand, ATSC uses a single carrier amplitude modulated very quickly (VSB modulated, technically). Thus small time differences due to multipath are not a problem for COFDM, but are a problem for 8-VSB modulation of ATSC. The new chips have extensive time-domain equalizers to handle multipath.

On the other hand, there was evidence that 8-VSB provides a greater coverage area with less power. Power costs are a major issue for television transmitters.

The other issue is that ATSC includes high-definition, while European DVB-T systems don't (as far as I know). Hi-def decoders are a bit more complex than standard-def decoders.

Re:Same here

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason that DVB set-top boxes are so cheap in France to begin with is that you are late in your transition to digital TV. The rest of Europe has been going at it for years, and that's how the Chinese manufacturers have been able to bring down the cost of set-top boxes. A few years back, they used to cost up to 150 euros.

I agree

[DaedalusLogic]

That's a really good point... one voucher gets them their signal back for an essential TV. Two is spending money on someone's desire for being able to watch in the kitchen, bedroom, or elsewhere.

There is no need to force it.

[kiddailey]

TV is an entertainment medium. The government should NOT be using my tax dollars to subsidise it. Doing so is the same as if the government gave movie theaters money so they could all have DLP theaters and told the movie industry they had to make digital films only.

Quite frankly, I don't see a single benefit for being forced to switch to a new way of paying for commercials.

This will mean the only true emergency communications medium will become radio - so much for my little pocket TV next time I need it during the next natural disaster.

As if we weren't trashing the Earth enough, now we're going to send 70 million television sets into the landfills.

And lastly, why the hell can't television sets receive both types of signals and let the industry decide whether to use one or both?

Antenna Tech

[Anonymous Coward]

I watched the Congressional Committee hearings on set top boxes last month, it really comes down to Motorola pushing for the extra spectrum so they can sell all first responders new communication systems.

The biggest problem that will face the great unwashed masses with using the digital set top boxes is getting a good enough signal from their antenna. What provided many people with a usable picture will get them a blank screen. DTV is an all-or-nothing deal. It is either a perfect picture or nothing. Those in apartment buildings without a central antenna system better be on the side of the building facing the transmitters, or they will be out of luck.

I expect the voucher will only cover the actual digital set top box, not a decent antenna. I can bet BestBuy will be making a huge profit on the antenna the helpful sales droid puts into the customer's cart.

Hopefully the 'SmartAntenna' interface and possibility some nifty phased array antennas will help citizens get a usage system.

d

Govt. = SCREWS EVERYTHING UP!

[Newer Guy]

ANYTHING the Govt. gets involved with WILL be screwed up! This particular mess is being handled by the FCC and Congress. The FCC is probably the single most incompetant of all the federal agencies. I work in radio, and a 15 year old could manage spectrum better then these clowns do! Congress is not much better, since they've had a "FOR SALE" sign hanging at the front door of the Capitol Building since the Republicans took over in the mid '90's.

mod parent up, grandparent troll please

[Anonymous Coward]

Spot on, I was about to make a big long post about the same thing. The grandparent is just making outlandish emotional arguments, turning "college loan funding increases by a lesser amount" into "tax cuts for the rich exploiting minorities for the illegal war in iraq for oil" mantra.

Sept 11, 2001 issue ... Wag the dog

[penix1]

"I'm really impressed that the appeal to Sept. 11th came in on the FIRST article."

The issue of commnications between agancies (fire, police, federal search & rescue) isn't addressed in this legislation but it sure is being used as an excuse to push it through without thinking first. Let's look at this issue.

1.) Radios used in 9/11 did not function when the person on the other end went into the building. This spectrum is said to "go through" building materials. Although a valid point, it isn't the only frequencies that do that. It is however a way to get television spectrum locked down digitally eventually making it all pay TV.

2.) The issue of the agancies being on different frequencies within the same spectrum and unable to communicate isn't addressed either. You had fire companies responding from other states that could not even tell someone they were there over the radio because nobody was listening on their frequency. Add to that the companies that responded with "digital radios" (and proprietary protocols) and even if you could listen it would be nothing but noise.

This legislation does nothing to address either of those issues properly and is a knee-jerk reaction following 9/11 and the more recent issues in the hurricanes. (The same as above, I might add, only 4 years after this was supposed to be fixed with billions being spent in DHS for it).

Using the 9/11 tragedy for every hot button issue has become the favorite among the politicians that have other agendas and this issue is no different.

B.

Re:Sept 11, 2001 issue ... Wag the dog

[Jayjay75]

"1.) Radios used in 9/11 did not function when the person on the other end went into the building. This spectrum is said to "go through" building materials. Although a valid point, it isn't the only frequencies that do that. It is however a way to get television spectrum locked down digitally eventually making it all pay TV."

In crowded metropolitan areas such as NY and LA all of the lower frequencies that do work inside of buildings are already in use. The radio spectrum for commercial and emergency services' communications has been extremely tight for decades.

"Add to that the companies that responded with "digital radios" (and proprietary protocols) and even if you could listen it would be nothing but noise."

I believe you're thinking of trunked radio systems where a control computer grabs an open frequency out of a pool of available ones every time someone keys their mic, rather than having a dedicated frequency for every service out there. It allows a much more efficient use of the available spectrum.

"The issue of the agancies being on different frequencies within the same spectrum and unable to communicate isn't addressed either. You had fire companies responding from other states that could not even tell someone they were there over the radio because nobody was listening on their frequency."

What's needed is a nationwide set of Mutual Aid frequencies for police, fire and rescue, and other emergency services. The trouble is there is no section of the radio spectrum available everywhere across the nation whose frequencies have the propogation properties needed.

"This legislation does nothing to address either of those issues properly and is a knee-jerk reaction following 9/11 and the more recent issues in the hurricanes. (The same as above, I might add, only 4 years after this was supposed to be fixed with billions being spent in DHS for it)."

This legislation will probably make the needed spectrum available and allow for the creation of that nationwide emergency network. Once the channels are available, communications radio manufacturers would add them to all of the sets that they make (they'd love to be able to sell all new radio systems to all of the cops and firefighters in the country)

Re:What's Negative about Paycheck Deductions?

[mpapet]

Negative tax rate is magical thinking on your part.

Step 1: Employee is paid. Paycheck has deductions for taxes. Some gov't entitity collects this money from the employer.

Step 2: Gov't entity floats tax payments and collects simple interest.(Profit)

Step 3: Annually, Employee gets a small percentage of the tax dollars paid in the last year back as a "refund." Employee has paid taxes and most of those are spent in gov't.

Your assertion does not stand up to even a simple test. Compare taxes collected annually for any individual earning less than 100K a year to their "refund" and see that gov't is still collecting taxes and the individual's tax burden is nowhere near "negative."

My personal line in the sand.

[helifex]

I will not buy a digital TV just for traditional broadcast style programming. I want on-demand/online video in open unrestricted formats that I'm able to move around to any device or pass along to who ever I want. If this means I have nothing to choose from so be it, I will live with out.

I look forward to the day I can justify purchasing a new TV because downloadable video content is legally available in HD formats without any form of content protection, but I will not be holding my breath.

Re:My personal line in the sand.

[TheDoctorWho]

umm, yeah, it's called on-demand, it's great! Till the Internet and TV companies find new ways to move such large amounts of data, you not buying a digital TV won't have much to do with anything.

Selling Spectrum is a Horrible Idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Selling spectrum is at best a short sighted idea, and at worse a money loosing idea. The whole spectrum land rush is going to cost each of us a ton of money. I know today people say the world is flat, but columbus is out on the ocean folks and when he gets back, watch out.

Projects like gnuradio are going to change the way we use the radio spectrum. You will have a device (or multiple devices) in your pocket. It will act as a walkie talkie, a cell phone, a lightweight client to your desktop, etc. This device will be smart enough to use the most efficient communications medium to make that happen. If the person you want to talk to is down the hall, it will act walkie talkie like, if they are across the country it will use a cell tower and the land lines. You want to read slashdot while riding the train, it will use WiMax (or something similar).

Sure people say the noise floor will raise with lots of communication on the same frequency. Well that is true, but if there are lots of frequencies available, they can be used better. Right now most frequencies are sitting not even transmitting a dead carrier. If more frequencies were used efficiently, there would be plenty.

Selling the spectrum will cost us $$ when the power in charge realize that that spectrum should be reallocated. The company that owns it will want what they paid plus interest and all their equipment costs covered. Guess who pays that, you and I. Nevermind that the cost of the spectrum was included in the profits of the owners of the service.

Selling spectrum should be a short term plan. Maybe 5 years, then it comes up for bidding again. Congress should like that, so they have a constant revenue stream.

Get a fucking job...

[Anonymous Coward]

...like a lot of us did, and got to a state college. It's not my problem as a taxpayer you can't all go to MIT and Harvard. I did my undergrad at state and then my Master's (when I could afford it with help from my employer) from USC. No mother hen government involved.

Who's fault is it?

[marcus]

Ever bother to ask why they have to hold down two jobs to feed their family?
Why can't they get one good job?
Even if they have a "good" job, why are they still living check-to-check?

In this country(USA), all of these boil down to personal choices.
Yes, they chose to drop out of school.
Yes, they chose to have sex when they couldn't afford it.
Yes, they chose to buy fancy wheels for their otherwise beat up car rather than save for the future(any future, their own, their kids', any).

The list goes on and except for a very special few who were born with personal disadvantages that really do prevent them from competing with the average Joe, these are the reasons why the poor are poor. THE base reason why the poor are poor is because they have made poor choices.

I have seen those that were not poor become poor because of poor choices. The most common choice of these I have seen is choosing to consume cocaine. What a waste.

Yes, there are those that start poor because their parents are poor, but that is no excuse for staying poor. I have seen poor become not poor, myself and others, by doing nothing more than basically wising up.

I'm not marginalizing anyone's life. I'm just minding my own business. If more would do just that, there would be fewer poor. If you didn't get it, think about it for a moment.

There are a few simple rules to guide your choices in your life, listed in my particular order:

1) In all choices, consider your future.

The rest stem from the first.

2) Be literate, basic reading and arithmetic/algebraic skills are required.

3) Don't have kids until you can afford them.

That's about it. Yes, it is personal responsibility 101.

Re:Who's fault is it?

[sconeu]

Yes, they chose to drop out of school.

I have a Bachelors in CS, and was a thesis away from an MS when the Northridge quake interrupted my education.

Yes, they chose to have sex when they couldn't afford it.

I and my wife (who is an RN) both had degrees and jobs as professionals when we had two children.

Yes, they chose to buy fancy wheels for their otherwise beat up car rather than save for the future(any future, their own, their kids', any).

I have driven the same old un-pimped car for 10 years. Prior to that, I drove the same old un-pimped car (Mazda 626) for 11 years. My wife drove her un-pimped cars (basic Honda Civic, basic Ford Aerostar) for 7 and 10 years respectively, before her current vehicle.

If she didn't work, we'd be living hand-to-mouth.

Get a fucking clue.

Re:Who's fault is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the children of those poor parents? Did they choose to be born to losers? Did they make a personal choice to live in bad housing, in a poor area, with poor education options available to them and pressure from their parents to drop out of school and start to contribute to the family? Of course some of the really motivated kids manage to drag themselves out of poverty, but both you & I know that they are by far the exception to the rule.

Re:Who's fault is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

You apparently need to get a clue. Reading comprehension is great! I like how you choose to beat down his argument, but then fail to realize he included you in there, idiot. Maybe the reason you have trouble is because you can't read?

And I quote

"The list goes on and except for a very special few who were born with personal disadvantages that really do prevent them from competing with the average Joe"

He messed up by saying born. He should have said "run into". The point is the same. I started with nothing. I was evicted from 5 houses growing up (or my mother was rather.) I didn't know my Dad. I learned computers in school. I got one the first opportunity I could. I make 70k as a Lead at a great company.

People are poor because they don't have the will to be otherwise.

Re:Who's fault is it?

[rk]

Given that Northridge quake interrupted your education, I'm going to assume you still live in Southern California. I'd make a guess that if chose to live somewhere else, you'd find that one of you with the education you both have would be able to live a bit more than hand-to-mouth on one income.

Speaking as a guy who has never lived in the hugely expensive areas of the country, I'm pretty damn comfortable right now, and although not capable of retiring yet, could probably afford to be out of work for a year or two without worrying unduly about where the next meal is coming from. That's mostly on one income that has never crested 75k per year, and we didn't start out with squat. I remember beating down the sofa looking for change a couple times to scrape up the money to buy the kid diapers in the early 90s. We've never had more than one car, and the nicest one we've ever had is the 2001 Ford Windstar we have right now which we still bought used in June.

You're paying a huge premium to live where you live would be my guess. You could always move to a more affordable region of the country, but if you don't because of [my family|my friends|cool thing to see and do here|whatever other reason] recognize that it's because you're choosing those things over more disposable income. In case I'm ticking you off please understand this is not a criticism, because those are frankly excellent reasons to NOT move. I'm just trying to point out that all choices have costs associated with them, including the choice not to take action.

Magic money! 10 billion from thin air.

[26199]

Where do people think that 10 billion comes from? It's a tax. A very sneaky one, but a tax nonetheless. You'll be paying extra for all the resulting new technology. Or, worse still, the technology won't arrive because the companies paid a ridiculous amount in the auction. We've seen something like that in the UK with mobile phone spectrum. See the first paragraph of this editorial.

So, please, don't talk about the switchover as if it produces money. It doesn't, it's just a tax that people aren't smart enough to complain about.

Re:What's Negative about Paycheck Deductions?

[chrisbw]

Try running that test on someone making $20k a year with three kids. They're called "refundable tax credits" which means it's a tax credit that even if your gross tax bill comes out to be $0 after deductions, those credits will be "refunded" to you, thus you can have a negative tax bill.

Follow the money

[a_greer2005]

Helping you or me wih school doesnt bring in bribes from GE(nbc), Viacom(cbs), Disney(abc), and Nerwscorps(fox).

[sarcasm]
If fat lazy bastards dont get a government check to get a new TV, They cant watch their stories whilst eating bon-bons bought with the foodstamps...THAT Would be harassment! and it would hurt the pooor, and women and children would be the hardest hit!
[/sarcasm]

Not only that,

[Descalzo]

I don't understand why people's TVs need to be subsidized. Shoot, practically everyone I know has a TV. Think about it: we all know poor, uneducated, or elderly people. They all have TVs. The government didn't pay for them, or even directly subsidize them in any way.

If someone's TV stops working properly, they replace it or get it fixed. That's all. So when the switch happens, many TVs will stop working (including mine, because I hate buying new anything except computer stuff). People will go to see about repairing or replacing them. Just like now, except we will see it coming.

Definitely untrue

[marcus]

Lookup "Earned Income Credit".

The "poorest" as defined by the gov, get back all that was witheld, except SS and Medi* which of course should not be considered taxes, rather they are the gov. pension plan and health plan, and some do get back SS checks and "free" health care.

In addition to the actual refund of all witheld funds, they can get more. Then throw in food stamps and other subsidies...

Face it, income redistribution is alive and well in the USA.

The government should not be buying us Televisions

[bareman]

The Government does not need to help pay for televisions or tv equipment. Access to TV is not an essential item. Having the Goverment buy the TV keeps prices artificially high. Free Market forces need to take care of this "problem". When the equipment is affordable, people will buy it. If someone can't afford to buy the TV and they really want it then they should go out and work for it and not just sit at home with their government provided TV.

Public broadcasting

[kureido]

The net gain ($10b - $1.5b) would still be a revenue influx of $8.5b. This sounds like a (surprisingly) fair and mutually beneficial deal.

It does indeed, until you read that the government is selling off spectrum that belongs to the American public to commercial interests. The first comprehensive legislation on spectrum use and broadcasting was the Radio Act of 1927, which established the Federal Radio Commission, precursor to today's FCC. The Radio Act instructed the FRC to favor those stations which served the "public interest, convenience, or necessity," but the pro-commercial administration of the FRC soon began cracking down on precisely those sorts of stations, run by non-profit groups and universities across the country. The FRC constantly reallocated these stations' spectrum, and finally came to the compromise, if you can call it that, of "allowing" many public interest stations to share a minute portion of the overall spectrum, and licensed the rest of it to commercial networks like NBC and CBS. (In 1927, NBC and CBS hardly existed; in 1931, their stations accounted for 70% of the broadcast power in the U.S.)

This step was the first of many in severely hindering those who wanted to use the electromagnetic spectrum to serve the public interest. Anyone flipping through cable channels today knows all too well who won that battle, and the recent Telecommunications Act of 1996 was more or less the last nail in the coffin -- its deregulatory clauses allowed for the creation of what could perhaps be called a media cartel, as the limits on the number of broadcasting stations one company could own were all but eliminated. Smaller companies merged together and about half of the nation's broadcasting stations changed hands as media giants snapped up as many stations as they could lay their hands on. See the case of Clear Channel Communications, which now owns roughly 1200 stations across the country.

Where am I going with all this? If anything, I'd like to see parts of that reclaimed spectrum reserved for public broadcasting, and a significant portion of profit gained from the sale of the rest of the spectrum to private interests allocated to fund public broadcasting. I simply don't think it's justified to use that money for anything else.

For more information on the political history of broadcasting in the U.S., see Robert W. McChesney's Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in Dubious Times, ISBN 1-56584-634-6.

Will we get better wifi?

[massysett]

Right now there is so much interference between wifi access points in my apartment building (and of course some of that might be cordless phones, microwave ovens, etc.) that the wifi is often unusuable. I hope some of that spectrum goes to a better wifi solution.

why bother?

[ebooborg]

by 2009 ill download so much stuff of Usenet at the rate im going that i wouldnt need Digital tele
anyways the idea of sony rootkits flowing down and installing themselves on my tele doesnt appeal to me

Personal Responsibility?

[bareman]

Seems to me that the people who are(would be) recieving these vouchers are the last ones that need to maintain access to TV. TV is not an essential item. If a person wants to maintain access to TV and is unable to afford it then they should go out and do additional work so that they can afford it. Not sit around watching TV paid for with MY tax dollars.

Re:The solution to poverty

[mpapet]

But they, and people like them, pay the lion's share of the taxes in this country, including property taxes
You present no facts to back up your claim. This is more quickie mart capitalism that justifies your own political beliefs.

Now, with that established, the American tax system prefers to collect taxes on income rather than savings. It protects the wealthy individuals living off of grandfather's accumulated fortune from too much competition. It also benefits the nation as a wealth building tool to conquer other nations with.

The lower middle class pays very little, and the poor people pay no income taxes... in fact, they get tax credits along with a zillion other entitlements funded mostly by hardworking professionals and their families.
Wrong. The tax burden falls to the middle class in our country. The wealthy have legal entities they own to shield their individual wealth from taxes and a complex tax code that protects that wealth inside the business they own.

Some friendly advice: Create a simple mathmatical model to prove your point. If you try, you will be frustrated because there is no simple model that justifies your beliefs.

Finally: There is no "solution to poverty." A myriad of social systems have been tried over the centuries to address poverty. They all fail and wide-scale poverty still exists. Capitalism does not address the concept of poverty either.

The usual method is to "manage" the poor. Keep them fed, clothed and working just enough so they don't rise up and kill you or otherwise compete with you. See the French Revolution for an example of what happens when the poor aren't "managed."

Then you are a fool

[marcus]

If you really think that the "safety net" is going to expand and stay that way.

Unless you are planning to retire in the next 10-15 years, you can count on diddly from SS. Medi* programs as well. These gov programs are already nearly bankrupt. The situation will worsen in the future. Everyone with a bit of financial and/or demographic sense knows it. Only after the majority of the voters in the US know it will anything be done and by then it will be too late.

Since you left your parents' house, when has your health been anyone's responsibility but yours? 60 years ago there was no health coverage supplied by employers, nor any provided by the gov. In no way has any business foisted any such load on individuals, rather a generation has had a relatively easy ride based on the hard work of their ancestors.

Expect all you want, but you can count on being hungry in the future if that is all you do.

RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

That way virtually all existing TV sets can remain in use long after the switch-over takes place.

Apparently, that's what the US govt will be issuing the 2x$40 vouchers for -- set-top boxen that allow old TVs to receive new signals.

Re:RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

please boxes not boxen.

Don't overlook the other ramifications

[UnknowingFool]

Converting to digital is a long time in coming. I really see no problem with it generally. Where I start to worry is in the areas of DRM. The content providers have been very insistent about inserting copyright flags into the signal to prevent piracy. There has been no proposed solution to those of us who simply want to record our favorite shows for our own use.

Why auction?

[captbob2002]

I've always wondered why the gov't. would auction off the spectrum for a one-time chunk of money as opposed to leasing it and receiving an ongoing stream of money.

Sure, it is off topic, but maybe someone has a good answer for me.

Re:Why auction?

[smchris]

Because once they are sold, they are no longer "public" airwaves and if you don't like what media corporations shove your way you can shove it and go amuse yourself by learning to play the bango on your porch?

Which might not be all bad. Of course, if anyone heard you, you'd have to pay royalties.

Mod redundant if you must, but...

[martinultima]

This is just fucking ridiculous. Why can't they just use their money on something that (1) actually benefits people and (2) won't make older equipment obselete, like hasn't done yet here>?

Sence when

[Amouth]

ok i am sorry i but the post is nothign but flamebait

"'Yes, the very same federal government that is cutting back on college loans and food stamps will soon be issuing TV vouchers' - $1.5 billion to help U.S. households buy new digital TV equipment."
"

Re:What's Negative about Paycheck Deductions?

[jnhtx]

Negative tax rate is magical thinking on your part.

Step 1: Employee is paid. Paycheck has deductions for taxes. Some gov't entitity collects this money from the employer.

Ok, our 'taxpayer' is single and has two kids. He has a taxable income of $12000.


Step 2: Gov't entity floats tax payments and collects simple interest.(Profit)

Since a person with two kids and a $12,000/year income pays no income tax, all he has to do is ask his payroll clerk to adjust his W-4 so that no income tax is withheld. So no 'float' for the goverment.


Step 3: Annually, Employee gets a small percentage of the tax dollars paid in the last year back as a "refund." Employee has paid taxes and most of those are spent in gov't.

Our hypothedical employee has had zero income tax withheld from his paycheck. He has paid no taxes.


Your assertion does not stand up to even a simple test. Compare taxes collected annually for any individual earning less than 100K a year to their "refund" and see that gov't is still collecting taxes and the individual's tax burden is nowhere near "negative."


Our taxpayer files an IRS Form 1040. He pays no taxes, but receives a 'refund' of $4300 (see the tax table at http://www.unclefed.com/Tax-Help/1040Instrs/i1040_ eic_table3.html ).

Income tax rates are calculated as follows:

rate = tax paid / taxable income * 100;

In this case our taxpayer's income tax rate is:

-4300 / 12000 * 100 = -$35%, i.e. a negative income tax rate.

I think the EITC is a good program, one of Richard Nixon's best ideas. I'd rather just send this taxpayer a check to help him pay his bills than have hire a building full of bureaucrats to make him jump through hoops and then give the 'taxpayer' the hundred dollars that would be left.

It is very sad that so many Americans (such as the poster quoted above) are innumerate. Our income tax system really only taxes the top half of all income earners ('the rich'). Therefore any tax cut is a 'tax cut for the rich'. In point of fact, when you let people spend their own money the goverment makes more total revenue than when you take it away from them before they ever even see it.

A simple thought experiement will show why this happens. Suppose the income rate was 100%. Every dollar you make goes to the goverment. Would you go out and get a job at all? What would be the point?

Goverment revenue at 100% tax rate: zero

Suppose there were no taxes. You get to keep every dollar you make. You'll probably go out and get a job. But the goverment won't get any of your money.

Goverment revenue at 0% tax rate: zero.

Somewhere between a tax rate of zero percent and a tax rate of 100% is the point of maximum goverment income. Careful study shows the income tax rate that maximizes revenue to the goverment is somewhere around a top tax rate of %20-25%.

So rational people (as opposed to liberals) want to see lower tax rates because lower tax rates generate more income for the goverment!

Even if you think, as does Hillary, that the goverment is entitled to 100% of everyone's income it makes no sense to set the rate that high. Even big goverment proponents like Hillary should want a top income rate below 30% if they want to have the biggest possible goverment.

Only idiots babble about 'tax cuts for the rich' with respect to our present income tax system.

Re:11.36% obviously did not RTFA...

[rts008]

OOPS! results missing from my comment: 30 comments out of 264 meet #1 in my survey - 30/264=0.11363636363636...., or 11.36% rounded. Sorry, my bad!

Imagination time

[Anonymous Coward]

!"increasing as much as planned" != "cutting back"

Pretend the following:

Your goal is to provide 1 crackpipe to every crackhead each day. It is 2005 and crackpipes cost 50 cents when purchased from the company you own, your friends own, or in which you have some other fairly direct vested interest. You have 200 crackheads. The 2005 government budget you authored has given your crackpipe company $100 dollars a day to do the job. You claim to be doing your job and have nice profits. You "serve" 100% of the crackheads.

Your company's lobbyist works closely with the government employees, who work for you so long as you remain elected, to generate forecasts that in 2006, crackpipes will definitely cost 60 cents and increases in people who think they might like to get some free crackpipes will give you 220 crackheads. Because your political allies know that these are just self-serving projections, they readily agree to scratch your back by offering a 2006 budget for your company of $140 a day, 40% increase in budget, so your company should be able to profit nicely and you may have a little money to spare on kickbacks or derivative pork projects. You still "serve" 100% of the crackheads.

When it comes time to actually pass the budget, your political enemies fight like the dickens to allocate more resources toward their own vested interests which means, at the end, you are only able give yourself $125 per day from the pockets of the fools who elected you, a 25% increase over the previous year's budget. However, your company plans to increase prices continues and persuasion of new folks willing to receive a free crackpipe were effective. Crackpipes now cost 60 cents and you should provide crackpipes for 220 crackheads each day.

You can only purchase 208 crackpipes, which means you are pissed off that you could not benefit from the sale of 12 additional units.

Did your profit increase? Yes.
Did you cut back on the percentage of crackheads you can "serve" and the services you offer? No, you just overmarketed.

Thus not increasing by as much as planned does equal cutting back on your income.

Subsidized Digital TV... still goes blank...

[m0nstr42]

There's lots of information here about how the government is going to (attempt to) subsidize digital-ready television sets for mom and pop, but there doesn't seem to be any suggestion as to how they're going to GET THE SIGNAL TO THEM. These are mostly in places where geographical and/or economic concerns make cable and satellite impractical.

February 17, 2009, millions of government-subsidized digital televisions.... still go blank. (A clearer, digital blank.)

Re:Subsidized Digital TV... still goes blank...

[bommai]

Completely lost you here. When analog broadcasts stop, TVs that use the NTSC tuner to tune to analog TV broadcasts will not be able to tune to them. By using this low cost box, the box will feed the NTSC TV analog signals that it creates by converting the ATSC transmission that it receives from the airwaves. These broadcast reception is exactly same as before. So, if the poor guy is using an outdoor antenna to watch Analog ABC, then he can watch Digital ABC using the box. So, what are you talking about blank!!

Re:Subsidized Digital TV... still goes blank...

[m0nstr42]

So there is still a freely-available over-the-air broadcast? In the sense that you can throw up an antenna and pick it up? Does it require a new antenna?

Re:Subsidized Digital TV... still goes blank...

[bommai]

Not necessarily. If your old antenna can pick up VHF/UHF frequencies, it can pick up the digital transmission also. Remember the tranmission frequencies are similar but the data embedded in the tranmission is MPEG2 digital stream that needs to be decoded. In fact, I don't subscribe to cable anymore. I just put up an antenna and get 8 HD stations in the Kansas City area. If you live in a bigger metro, you might get even more stations. In crisp HD and Dolby digital 5.1 sound.

Re:Subsidized Digital TV... still goes blank...

[m0nstr42]

Thanks. I didn't know that. Alot of the media coverage of the subject skips these "details".

Re:Tax Credits

[mpapet]

Missing my point entirely:

Let's look at the facts:
2.1 percent of all individuals reporting income taxes in 2003 are at or below $20,000. (about 1.8 million people)
http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0, ,id=96981,00.html

So, you are suggesting there's some kind of whooshing sound with all 1.8 million people rushing to become welfare millionaire's as a result of the tax credit?

Re:What's Negative about Paycheck Deductions?

[Anonymous Coward]

My only comment:
"Even big goverment proponents like Hillary..."

Come on now... the whole "X wants big government, but we're against it" argument holds no water any more.... Are you telling me the current administration isn't about big government?

Airwaves should not be regulated.

[twitter]

Regardless of your feeleings on television, it is important that everyone have free (or near free) access to news, state of the union addresses, etc.

Such access would be guaranteed if Uncle Sam would get out of the way. As has been shown again and again, there is no scarcity of broadcast bandwith if modern packet switching technology is used. The entire spectrum, with a few military exceptions, should be set free for all to use as they see fit. The whole DTV thing is intended to keep the incumbents in business at everyone else's expense. The only thing worse than giving the incumbents huge chunks of spectrum they have proved they do not deserve is selling them the rest of it too. The net benefit to giving away the spectrum would be the elimination of the last mile barrier, a huge win for everyone.

Re:What's Negative about Paycheck Deductions?

[jnhtx]

Hillary springs to mind because I heard her on TV the other day talking about how maybe the goverment should just take the profits of the oil companies.

Hillary has never made a secret of her love for an ever bigger nanny state. And this business about seizing all the profits of the oil companies shows she views all income as her property. Of course we knew that all along also.

I didn't say anything about the current administration, but you're right, they are spending way too much. The answer to that problem isn't raising taxes (that just cuts revenue to the goverment), it's to reduce entitlement programs.

I'm waiting for anyone in Washington, especially anyone whining about the deficit, to suggest reducing any entitlement.

I'm waiting......still waiting....wait..........

No, what's telling

[Anonymous Coward]

It's very telling that, in the course of decent discussion, the trolls come out more heavily holding your point of view.

What's telling is that whenever someone can't make a point with logic, the facts, or rhetorical skill they paint their opposition with a convenient label: in this case, "troll." The label is meant to say "Please ignore my opponent, as he is currently winning!!"

Re:No, what's telling

[Anonymous Coward]

I really had no stake in this particular branch of the thread. But, after reading things since about post 50 or so, the majority of people who have resorted to insulting, derogatory, or inflammatory language have been on the side defending a pyramid scheme as if it's a good will venture. Even you took the effort to turn the topic around as if to belittle words which I used. You make it so obvious.

Re:The government should not be buying us Televisi

[Control Group]

This would be true if it wasn't the government taking the TV away from them in the first place. The concern is the people who already did "go out and work for it," but are now, by government edict, unable to use what they went out and worked for. It's sort of like eminent domain on a smaller scale: if they're going to bulldoze your property, the least they can do is pay you for it.

Now, if you want to talk about whether or not there should be the "go digital" government mandate in the first place, I suspect you and I would see eye-to-eye in our views of government intervention vs free market forces.

here we go again

[Danzigism]

Just my personal opinion here of course.. I'm all for the switch to DTV.. But I do agree that its outrageous for the US Government aiding the public with the digi switchover for the price of 1.5 billion dollar..

so many people complain about taxes.. but lets set some things straight firstly.. your sewage, roads, libraries, public schools, NPR, PBS, parks, and all the wonderful things that we benefit from are thanks to our tax dollars.. and we need to continue to "invest" our money wisely..

it seems like there's no way to win when it comes to this kinda stuff.. i feel that its extremely important for the american people, and all people for that matter, to have access to public broadcasts both radio and television.. its the only damn news worth watching.. the only news that isn't shoving an opinion down your throat, or calling you an idiot for thinking otherwise.. *cough* bill oreilly *cough*..

therefore, if they are going to switch over to digi broadcasts, then its essential that we spend the money to make sure everyone has the technology, and I personally appreciate the consideration of those who need the equipment..

HOWEVER, all it really takes is simple promotion.. Slashdot isn't enough.. the majority of the world doesn't read slashdot unforutnately.. there's NO information in the mainstream regarding this switch.. most people don't even KNOW that there will no longer be analog broadcasts in 2009.. I asked my parents about it and they just looked at me like I was crazy.. they don't even know the difference between analog and digital..

but if we start NOW, by spreading the word, and educating the masses a little, then maybe we'll all go out an get one of those digital set top box converters.. if we're lucky, by 2009, they'll be as cheap as bunny ears.. again, the consideration is a nice thought, but we could definitely use that 1.5 billion for something a little more useful..

Re:Materially False

[mpapet]

Since a person with two kids and a $12,000/year income pays no income tax, all he has to do is ask his payroll clerk to adjust his W-4 so that no income tax is withheld. So no 'float' for the goverment.

And when the employee does this, he gets a bill for the taxes owed to the gov't right around February that's due April 15 of the next year. Your post suggests you don't have any experience in the matter whatsoever.

I'm not making this up:
1. http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0, ,id=96981,00.html
2. Download All Returns: Adjusted Gross Income, Exemptions, Deductions, and Tax Items for 2003.
3. Table 1.1 Table 1.1--2003, Individual Income Tax Returns, Selected Income and Tax Items, by Size and Accumulated Size of Adjusted Gross Income--Continued
4. Look at "Income Tax After Credits" and what you'll discover is people paying taxes with AGI's at or below 20,000. Lots of them too!

Again, your opinion does not stand up to simple tests. Please examine the data taken from real people submitting real tax returns and reevaluate your position.

Forget analog, where are all the HDTV channels!

[zeuqsav]

I got a used projector 2 years ago and so upgraded my Comcast box to one that does HD (forget LCD, plasma, I have a fantastic 105" HDTV picture for about $1500, what a bargain!). However, in the intervening two years, the number of HD channels went from about 10 to about 12 now. Two of them suck as they are the INHD "demo" channels.

It's good for the SuperBowl and the occasional Jay Leno but that's about it!

-sigh-

Re:The solution to poverty

[SkyDude]

Finally: There is no "solution to poverty." ...... Capitalism does not address the concept of poverty either.

I would take issue with that portion of your statement. Capitalism may not directly end poverty, but it provides the vehicle to make it possible for anyone to become financially successful. Success is never going to be handed to anyone, one must be educated in how to achieve it and how to work for it. Some people learn that on their own; others need mentoring. In the end, personal initiative and an understanding to not always blame others for one's failures is the way to become a financial and personal success. The ability to recover from failure - financial or personal - is a good indicator as to one's ability to succeed.

Use your voucher . . . Get your set-top box . . .

[omniview2]

Or the terrorists win. G.W.

Re:Problem solved Kill Your TV !!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I also will tune out forever as of 2009!!

See ya!!

Re:Materially False

[jnhtx]

I've forgotten more about taxes than you'll ever know. My example is 100% correct and typical for millions of EITC 'taxpayers'.

Re:Check the Facts

[mpapet]

I'm not making this up:
1. http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0, ,id=96981,00.html
2. Download All Returns: Adjusted Gross Income, Exemptions, Deductions, and Tax Items for 2003.
3. Table 1.1 Table 1.1--2003, Individual Income Tax Returns, Selected Income and Tax Items, by Size and Accumulated Size of Adjusted Gross Income--Continued
4. Look at "Income Tax After Credits" and what you'll discover is people paying taxes with AGI's at or below 20,000. Lots of them too!

Again, your opinion does not stand up to simple tests. Please examine the data taken from real people submitting real tax returns and reevaluate your position.

Re:Materially False

[jnhtx]

"And when the employee does this, he gets a bill for the taxes owed to the gov't right around February that's due April 15 of the next year. Your post suggests you don't have any experience in the matter whatsoever."

What are you talking about, 'getting a bill right around February'???????????????????

The man ownes NO taxes. He is not required to file. The goverment doesn't 'send out a bill' even if you DO have taxable income. He will get a W-2 that shows $12000 of income, no tax due, and if he elects to file a return he will get a 'refund' of at least $4300 (probably more from child tax credit).

Those are the QUANTATIVE FACTS.

Re:The solution to poverty

[mpapet]

Capitalism may not directly end poverty, but it provides the vehicle to make it possible for anyone to become financially successful.

Academically valid point, but the real-world application of capitalism creates a two-tiered system with few controlling very many with intentional barriers to prevent competition.

Oh, the stupidity.

[atomic_toaster]

1) Congress has budgeted $1.5 billion to provide vouchers for owners of outdated TVs to purchase digital-to-analog converters. Each owner will be entitled to two vouchers worth $40 apiece. Do the math: 70 million outmoded TVs x $80 in vouchers = $5.6 BILLION. Congress' proposed budget is woefully inadequate in comparison to its commitments.

2) Why in the world is the US government subsidizing television reception for outdated TVs in the first place? Couldn't they just announce the cut-off date and then say "sorry, the rest of you were warned"? Those who can afford to subscribe to cable/satellite will continue to do so, and those who can't will go to places where they can watch free public screenings, or spend more time reading. Television access is a luxury, not a right; why has it become one? FTA, Consumer groups say this is only fair because the government is essentially reducing the value of people's property. Well, they don't make media for my 8-track machine anymore -- where's my money???

3) FTA, Sets hooked up to cable or satellite services should work fine no matter what. This means that coax input will remain constant, and this means that we've had digital-to-analog TV converters for YEARS. They're commonly called VCRs; actual tape machines or digital ones will work, so long as it has coax in and out, and RCA out. To convert the signal, the recording part of the machine doesn't even have to operate properly. VCRs that eat tapes but still have working connections are easy to find second-hand at the Salvation Army and garage sales, usually for $5 or less. (This is what I did when I was in college; I hooked up a VHS VCR that ate tapes to a Commodore 64 monior, and I basically had a television set with tuner. All for less than $15. And this was "all the way back" in 2000.) New machines can cost as little as $50 for a VHS VCR and $100 for a DVD recorder. So to think that new analog-to-digital converters, without tape or DVD writing mechanisms, should be $40 to $80 apiece is ludicrous.

4) FTA, People are supposed to apply for the vouchers during a three-month window in 2008, and use them within three months. But there probably won't be enough vouchers to go around... You think? When the allocated budget is about a quarter of what it should be? Say it ain't so! And the logistics surrounding such a short turn-around time are horrendous.

6) For 20 million people who have been watching TV over radio spectrum, the digital-to-analog converters are going to be rather useless. Why? Because one of the reasons that they were watching free TV is because they couldn't afford to pay for cable/satellite in the first place! Why does the government figure that these people can suddenly afford to have cable/satellite installed and pay the monthly fees? This is a modern-day rendition of "let them eat cake!"

6) You may remember a previous Slasdot post about the Digital Content Security Act, which has legislators introducing a "measure [that] will outlaw the manufacture or sale of electronic devices that convert analog video signals into digital video signals, effective one year from its enactment..." Digital-to-analog and analog-to-digital devices are easily reversable, especially when you're talking coax to RCA. So once the MPAA has all television converted to digital, they want to outlaw the hardware that the government plans to subsidize so that people can watch their content? Am I the only one who sees a flaw with this?

Re:Oh, the stupidity.

[babyrat]

2) Why in the world is the US government subsidizing television reception for outdated TVs in the first place? Couldn't they just announce the cut-off date and then say "sorry, the rest of you were warned"?

No, the government is making an estimated $10 billion on the deal (auctioning the spectrum), and has decided to allocate some of that money to help people out. Tell me what's wrong with that?

3) FTA, Sets hooked up to cable or satellite services should work fine no matter what. This means that coax input will remain constant, and this means that we've had digital-to-analog TV converters for YEARS. They're commonly called VCRs;

No - you have to have a device capable of translating the digital to analog. The satellite or cable boxes do this. Your VCR will not (unless you have some sort of new fangled HDTV VCR).

6) For 20 million people who have been watching TV over radio spectrum, the digital-to-analog converters are going to be rather useless. Why? Because one of the reasons that they were watching free TV is because they couldn't afford to pay for cable/satellite in the first place! Why does the government figure that these people can suddenly afford to have cable/satellite installed and pay the monthly fees? This is a modern-day rendition of "let them eat cake!"

WTF?? If you have one of the boxes you won't need cable. Just like today - I can get all the major stations HD feed over the air (for free) because I have a new TV with an HD tuner built in. If i had one of these boxes, then I wouldn't need an HDTV with a tuner built in - i could watch free digital signals today.

Re:Oh, the stupidity.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the government is making an estimated $10 billion on the deal (auctioning the spectrum), and has decided to allocate some of that money to help people out. Tell me what's wrong with that?

The fact is that they're subsidizing television, which is part of the entertainment industry, not the government. It is an extremely profitable industry as well, despite what the MPAA claims in "losses" to piracy. Television doesn't even have the dubious distinction of being a research medium. Despite the fact that $10 billion total will be generated from the deal, that does not justify using $1.5 billion of that to subsidize entertainment. That is not an effective use of resources, and is not the kind of "help" that people need. A better use of the money would be computers and high-speed internet access for schools in poorer neighbourhoods, or improvements to libraries, or... Most of the causes-of-choice have more relevance than subsidizing a profitable entertainment industry that doesn't really need any help.

No - you have to have a device capable of translating the digital to analog. The satellite or cable boxes do this. Your VCR will not (unless you have some sort of new fangled HDTV VCR)... I can get all the major stations HD feed over the air (for free) because I have a new TV with an HD tuner built in.

My mistake. From the way the article was written, I assumed that the sale of the previously-allocated video spectrum would mean that there would be no more "free" television available without a cable or satellite connection. My apologies.

My other points still stand, however:

1) Budget. FTA: Owners of outmoded TV sets will be eligible for two vouchers, worth $40 each, to help buy converter boxes that will enable today's analog TV sets to receive digital signals. 70 million outmoded TVs x $80 in vouchers = $5.6 BILLION. Congress budgeted $1.5 billion. That's about a quarter of the possible total... Even if you assume that not everyone who could use one will want or be able to get a voucher.

4) Supply. FTA: People are supposed to apply for the vouchers during a three-month window in 2008, and use them within three months. But there probably won't be enough vouchers to go around... See point #1.

6) Digital Content Security Act. How will passing the potential legislation prohibiting the sale of analog-to-digital devices be affected by or affect the government subsidization of $1.5 billion of this kind of device?

Re:Oh, the stupidity.

[atomic_toaster]

Whoops, I forgot to log back in. That was me. (Obviously.)

Show Me The Money

[mpapet]

No, those aren't quantitative facts. What I provided are quantitative facts.

You are simply assuming you are correct to maintain your perception. Sadly, it seems you aren't willing to change despite the facts presented.

Good luck.

Where do I sign up to get the box?

[Secrity]

OK, if my tax money is going toward this, I want my voucher for a free box. I don't care that I don't need it because I have cable TV.

What a waste of my tax dollars

[minion]

What a waste of my tax dollars. You know, if those homes can't afford a new TV to pick up digital signals, than I say we keep analog broadcast alive, and only broadcast things like PBS, educational programs, and the news. That way, these people can keep learning something, and keep up to date on the world, and maybe better themselves.
 
Seriously, if you're that stinking poor, you need to be learning something to improve your life. Reruns of Seinfield are not going to help.

Re:What a waste of my tax dollars

[Danzigism]

definitely agreed.. public broadcasting is essential for this country, and the world.. the only news worth watching too..

the programming is also great.. its nice being able to exercise your brain a little rather than just zoning in to complete nothingness..

primary example of our tax dollars at work.. the people that make NPR and PBS possible work pretty damn hard to provide us with great television for free public use.. i think the digital switch will be a good thing if it benefits PBS in some way.. which it will.. its just that whole spending $1.5 billion dollars thing.. if we start informing the public about the analog/digi switch now, then sooner than later, the prices of the set top box converters will go down in price..

Re:Materially False

[mpapet]

Based on your authority alone I'm supposed to deny the facts as presented by the IRS in an objective manner?

Obvious?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please don't refer to the taxes which will ultimately come from citizens as profit. Otherwise, the negative starts to sound positive.

Re:Obvious?

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe you meant to say "confiscatory tax schemes" instead of "taxes."

Misunderstanding relationships

[argStyopa]

Let's be clear about who is doing what to whom, shall we?

Television is not provided gratis to the viewing public out of the generosity of some media mogul's heart (or space formerly therefore).

Television is a MEANS of delivering viewer eyeballs to advertiser content. They 'bait' you with 24 minutes of programming per half hour, and then hope you don't notice that they 'switch' to advertising for at least 6 minutes. (Admittedly, lately they've gotten more subtle about the switch part by using product placement, and cheapened the bait with 'Reality' TV, but the principle's the same.)

Hi-def will be a way for these companies to put out more attractive bait. (OK, actually what happened was that the digital compression algorithms have allowed them to squeeze more analog signals into the allowed bandwidth, more like dropping LOTS of shitty-baited hooks in the water instead of something particularly attractive. Gov't is mandating that they use only the 'pretty bait'.)

So could someone explain to me why the US gov't is subsidising a privately owned and MASSIVELY profit-generating product delivery system?

Fair Tax

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, you're dead right. People born in to money don't pay income tax at all unless they also work a job, and even then they aren't taxed on their family savings.

This is why Fairtax is better. It taxes spending, so those born in to money DO get hit hardest, and those that just squeak get hit least hard.

In fact, with the way the rebate system works, people below the poverty line actually pay NEGATIVE taxes, in that their rebate will exceed their total taxes.

Also consider: A drug dealer takes most of the spending money from a small group of addicts with minimum wage jobs. Under the old system, these people were taxed and the drug dealer got rich under the table. Now, the drug sales are untaxed as they are under the table, but the drug dealer's fancy new rims sure are taxed. No matter the scheme, the richest person pays the most with Fairtax.

Also, paying back a loan is not subject to sales tax, so it's easier to get out of debt with fairtax. Plus, we can very easily declare no tax on anything 'essential', like prescription drugs, and cut out the lengthy and bizzare rebate systems.

Fairtax: It's just better. For once in American politics, there's no bizarre dichotomy. There's no reason NOT to do this.

Re:Fair Tax

[Inkieminstrel]

For once in American politics, there's no bizarre dichotomy. There's no reason NOT to do this.

Doesn't spending stimulate economic growth?

Re:Fair Tax

[SilverspurG]

Especially so when spending someone else's money.

Speak for yourself, dude

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, my household pretty much fits your description, yet I do not seem to have your anger and resentment towards folks making lower income.

I was only able to get my college degree because I went to taxpyer subsidized state universities, with taxpayer paid student aid.

I could go on to list the many, many other ways that government programs have allowed me and my wife to be succesful upper income professionals.

I would like people to have the same opporutnities I have. I seems only fair to me.

Re:Speak for yourself, dude

[doubledoh]

You would have been able to pay for your own college degree if education supplies weren't artificially decreased by the government's virtually limitless subsidies, regulations, grants, and interest free loans that have doubled, tripled, or otherwise grossly multiplied education prices (allowing for inflation mind you).

Read these:
http://harrybrowne.org/articles/EducationForEveryo ne.htm
http://harrybrowne.org/articles/FreeTheSchools.htm
http://harrybrowne.org/Journal0409.htm#GovernmentS chools
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=240 68
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=26270

Re:Speak for yourself, dude

[ScentCone]

You know, my household pretty much fits your description, yet I do not seem to have your anger and resentment towards folks making lower income.

You're misreading my comment, and not seeing the context. I responded to the guy that said that better off people "have" the money that is actually the money of poor people. My take on it is that money (which merely represents value) is made through productivity, and that suggesting that you or me have a dollar because we took it from a poor person is nonsense. I'm all for opportunities, and cannot think of a single wiser investment of tax dollars than education. But simple redistribution of wealth to make for an imaginary theft from poor people is just Marxist claptrap and needs to be noted as such.

Obsolesence?

[nick_davison]

this transition -- which will render about 70 million TV sets obsolete

It's a curious definition of obsolescence.

The CRT still works, the RCA inputs that most TVs have had for years still work, the coaxial input that every TV gets still works, the tuner still works and the remote still works.

It's like arguing that DVD made cheap TVs without RCA obsolete. Well, save for a $15 RCA-to-Coaxial adaptor - at which point they ran just fine.

Similarly, the obsolete analog TV, when digital switches over, will remain perfectly compatible with an external digital tuner for over the air signals, just as it's already compatible with satelite and cable boxes that convert digital to analog for you.

Yes, the digital to analog tuners are currently pricey due to basic economies of scale:

Who in their right mind would pay money to get a digital signal and degrade it to the exact same analog signal they can already receive for free? You can't even claim better reception because digital drops to artefacts and then nothing, far before analog drops to pure static, in most poor reception areas - some analog static is better than no digital picture.

But, when 70m TVs suddenly only work with DVD players and VCRs but no TV anymore, that's going to be a pretty big market to either buy new TVs or these tuners. Assuming they've been cheap enough to continue this long, they aren't likely to want to drop hundreds if not thousands on a new TV - so we can expect tens of millions interested in the digital-to-analog external tuners.

And when you shift from a few misguided early adopters to tens of millions, what happens to economies of scale? I'm guessing $20-30 parts at your local Radio Shack and nice expensive brand name ones at Best Buy.

In the purest sense, sure, they're obsolete exactly how they are for over the air TV signals. But the simple addition of a $20-30 part that every last one of them can accept hardly sounds like obsolesence to me.

With the government fronting $1.5b (or roughly $50/TV if we assume half of the 70m won't bother to claim, will upgrade the whole TV, etc.), that'll more than cover the $20-30 part and, besides: "loss of news and weather"? A cheap $5 AM/FM radio will give you that back - I know it's scary America but you don't need pictures for it to be true.

So, no real obsolesence, no real cost to those who need a cheap part to upgrade and no massive loss to those who completely ignored the warnings for ten years (accepting that for some reason we felt sorry for those who ignored the warnings about Katrina despite even greater potential cost)... why are we worrying about this?

Actual figures please...

[hackwrench]

So where are the actual figures? Without them, you're just as bad as the article you deplore.

That being said, what are the larger set of figures encompasing the government's spending, past and planned, of all education and welfare related items. If the hovernment is cutting back on general outlays to, in this case, Universities, loans may be the wrong target, but the right area.

forgotten facts

[turb]

One aspect that seems to be getting swept under the rug is that digital signals don't travel as far when using an antenna. When we upgraded to be all digital last year this was one of the "fun" aspects, what used to be our "local" channels suddenly weren't because their broadcast antenna was too far away.

To add to the issue of course is adding the NFL blackout rules to the mix. As it is currently today broadcasters happily enforce a blackout range never mind that under the capabilities of digital system the range of signals is less and thus things like directv where people would turn to pick up the slack suddenly cause a problem.

Consider directv says ..no football for you since it's on your local channel, but since the digital range is less ooops ... you get to see nothing.

Now that's what I call progress!

Re:forgotten facts

[nocaster]

A "digital" singnal is no different than an analog signal as far as distance is concerned. Many stations are not broadcasting their DTV signal at full power yet so fringe areas may not recieve the signal as clearly as they will when they go full power.

Digital TV is yesterday

[Kylere]

Anyone reading this board other than the wannabes should be ashamed to admit owning a TV by 2009. The platform is dead as the Amiga 500 with HD and RAM expansion in my garage.

without the Roman circus...

[harvey the nerd]

Yes, imagine the positive impact when some fraction of the masses are rudely withdrawn from "free" public programming...

Re: If only it were true

[mpapet]

This scenario only occurs in your mind.

In the real world, when it comes time for apples to be delivered they are indeed delivered and you, the contractor are paid in full for services and apples delivered.

I know this because I work for a company that has subcontracts for gov't agencies for things similar to apples.

You share a common frustration regarding the crazy way gov't appears to work. But someone please explain how that's insightful.

portable T.V.s and UHF spectrum

[snooo53]

That's a good point about anyone with a portable TV not being able to receive digital broadcasts. I wonder how long it will take to come out with a pocket sized digital receiver or if they will ever be sold?

I'm not sure why they don't just keep the standard VHF channels and a handful of the lower UHF ones analog so that way people with old or portable equipment can still use it. Just mandate that any UHF station above say 30 has to switch to a lower frequency. Everything above that can be auctioned off and then no has to have subsidized digital boxes.

Re:portable T.V.s and UHF spectrum

[kiddailey]

I have no idea. It all really just feels like a bunch of industry lobbyists have been pushing the government to force a transition in an attempt to gain more control (via the "broadcast flag" and/or one or more kinds of DRM that will be possible with the new system).

Also dont forget

[tfcdesign]

The promise and plan for HDTV were made during the internet bubble by one administration, and the cuts are made by another administration due to the crash and other expedatures.... A lot of sh*t changes in 10 years.

Value of spectrum

[Mal-2]

Seems to me those in power place the value of the spectrum they will be able to re-sell at more than the cost of upgrading everyone. My questions are:

1. Are they right? Who gets to keep the money if they are? If it's going back into the same General Fund that the voucher money came out of, I can hardly oppose this.

2. Whose pockets are being lined? Will these vouchers only be good for buying officially sanctioned equipment from companies that paid their protection money? Given the ethics of the current administration, I would be very surprised if someone connected isn't getting a large proportion of this "free money".

Fact is, analog broadcasts are spectrum-inefficient. Digital has its drawbacks as well, namely that it does not degrade gracefully and (like commercial music) is usually compressed within an inch of its life. I see MPEG artifacting on rapid movements quite often, and it grows more annoying every time. This is not inherent to the medium, but it is the trade made by broadcasters who wish to cram three or four separate channels into their frequency band. Quantity, not quality, seems to be the American Way. We have become a nation of Coneheads -- you can argue how long ago we crossed that threshold, but it's undeniable that we did so some time ago. No longer satisfied with our 13 channels of shit on the TV to choose from, we get 500 channels of shit instead 100 well-encoded, sharp channels carrying actual content.

Mal-2

Keep them fat and stupid!

[mwilliamson]

"Yes, the very same federal government that is cutting back on college loans and food stamps will soon be issuing TV vouchers' - $1.5 billion to help U.S. households buy new digital TV equipment."

A fat and stupid population is actually a requirement of a totalatarian government. Its just so much easier handling sheeple than people. Complacency is a disease.

Wow

[nocaster]

I thought this article would be full of comments about how crapy SD signals look on a 42" plasma. Instead we are debating about feeding apples to school kids and budget cuts.

RADIO!

[Ingolfke]

You can buy a radio for $10. Why do you need a television for news and weather? The answer is you don't. This is a bullshit waste of money. Anyways, the cable and dish companies would just run a promotion that would allow you finance a digital TV.

Mercury? What part of a TV has mercury in it?

[Ellis D. Tripp]

Lots of lead, cadmium, plasticizers, flame retardants, and other lovelies though, especially in older sets. Stuff that will all end up entering landfills in a huge wave (as opposed to a constant trickle) thanks to this plan.

About the only ones who will get any benefit are the dwindling handful of radio hams and young electronics geeks who still pull TVs off the curb and strip them for parts...

Let yea without TV cast the first stone.

[Anonymous Coward]

"80 years ago people were expected to read Shakespear in the 4th grade, now we (MAYBE) get into it by high school. We've been dumbed down folks, and if you don't think TV played a large part in that, well, you watch too much TV...

I think this attitude is hilarious coming from slashdot. I have seen it almost too many times to count. From the "technology isn't bad, it's just technology" crowd, and indictment of a communication technology. And yes, one-way is still communication. Otherwise, we should trash newspapers and "Shakespear" (sic - hmm, maybe you're right about the dumbing down...), too."

I commented elsewere, but I find the OP's comment about TV and literacy...ON SLASHDOT! Beyound hilarious. This is the forum for armchair experts, that can't even get spelling and grammer correct, then screw-up on subjects like economics, business, citizenship, law, and even math. So who's watching too much TV again?

Re:Check the Facts - Go Ahead

[marcus]

You posted a broken link. See this:

Individual Income and Tax Data 2003

and look into column C, under 30,000.

Near the bottom see: Total Tax Liability $40.4M
Just above see: Excess earned income credit (refundable): $34.2M

See footnotes 2c and 2d: ... includes both the refundable and non-refundable portions. The non-refundable portion could reduce income tax and certain related taxes to zero; credit amounts in excess of tax, or amounts when there was no tax liability at all, were refundable.

Do realize that there is no EIC refund unless tax liability has been reduced to zero.

So, 68.5M returns filed in 2003 with AGI less than $30K
They paid, assuming 100%, $40.4M, on average a tax rate of $590 per return.
However, out of that 68.5M returns filed, there were 18.5M that got EIC refunds amounting to $34.2M

Go ahead, revise your position.

Broadband if you do, Dialup if you don't

[Anonymous Coward]

Substitute "broadband" for TV in your post, and read this story

Apparently broadband is to geeks, what TV is to the masses. Neither side cares if the other's "addiction" is taken away, but yowl when their "pacifier" is.

Analog to Digital

[JerryLs]

After a short time, converter boxes will (should be) as cheap as dirt, and those with "old" technology can still watch free tv. Same thing happened when UHF came along. Big deal.

Which unfortunately doesn't fly here in CA

[Anonymous Coward]

Gonna have to cry BS on your comment.

If those 40 new tax paying "citizens" are illegal immigrants with *almost always* more than 2 children, that doesn't fly, and here's why:

Most illegal immigrants are either 1) Not reporting their income at all or 2) Making $10 an hour. Here in San Diego, most of the jobs they've "freed up to allow legal citizens to do higher paying jobs" are jobs that TEENAGERS have historically worked, ie, food and service industries. These jobs pay almost *no* tax money, and unlike their American-teenage offspring, these people often have (large) families to feed.

Not to mention the HUGE cash flow leaving the country into mexico (we're talking billions of dollars a year here) that immigrants send back to feed their families. This means that practically NONE of that money goes back into our economy and goes untaxed.

When the weather man says it's not going to rain and it does do you blame the weather man? Forecasts/estimates/projections aren't perfect. You can't equate a lower turnout than an expected turnout. Now, if I cut you a check for $100 dollars and then renig on that and say you can only have $90 of it, now THAT is a cutback.

Re:Materially False

[jnhtx]

Based on your authority alone I'm supposed to deny the facts as presented by the IRS in an objective manner?

I provided an actual numerical example with a link to the appropriate tax table.

You provided a link to a collection of spreadsheets. You made a statement to the effect that the goverment would send our $12K 'taxpayer' a 'bill in Febuary'.

Our 'taxpayer' owes no taxes, and the goverment will not ever 'send him a bill'. The goverment doesn't 'send out bills' for taxes.

The fact is that I understanded the amount of the refund that our $12K 'taxpayer' would receive, because I left out the child tax credit to keep things simple and I used the 2004 tax rates. The Bush tax cuts give this 'taxpayer' and even better break in 2005.

The bottom line is that I gave accurate numbers, and you didn't give a single number, just your incorrect opinion.

Here is what you can do if you would like to learn a little about the U.S. tax system:

Let's assume that you are single and have two children who are related to you and live with you all year. Assume you have an income earned by working for an employer of $12,000 during. You don't own a home, you have no other income, deductions, or adjustments to income. You followed my advice and told your payroll to not withhold taxes during 2005.

Your filing status is called 'head of household' because you have children, but don't have a spouse living in your home.

Now I know that math is hard, but follow me here:

Tet an IRS form 1040 ( http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040a.pdf ). Check the 'head of household' filing status in block 4. Put the number '2' into box 6d, for your two dependants.

Write the figure $12000 into box 7, 'wages, salaries, and tips'.

Write the figure $12000 into box 21, 'adjusted gross income'

On line 27, write the figure $7300. This is the standard deduction for HOH filers.

Here is the part that may be difficult for you.

Subtract $7300 from $12000, and put the result of $4700 into block 27. This is your taxable income.

Now look up in your tax tables ( http://www.savewealth.com/taxes/rates/headofhouseh old/ ) the tax you must pay and place the number zero next to the word tax in box 28.

If you want you can stop now, since you owe no taxes you are not required to file.

But wait, there's more!!!

Consult IRS Publication 596 ( http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p596.pdf )to calculate your Earned Income Tax Credit. You will wind up looking at page 48 where you will find that you are entitled to an Earned Income Tax Credit of $4,400.

Recall that tax rate is calculated as (tax paid) / (income);

So your tax rate is -4400 / 12000 = -36.67%

I will leave to the students the question of how large this 'taxpayers' child tax credit will be.

Those are the firm, accurate numbers.

Now go write a letter to President Bush and thank him.

Accurate news on Fox? Sniffing flour or what?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no accurate news on Fox except when they give you the date of their TV Schedule
and perhaps the weather.

Fox has too many liars (Harnnity and OReilly for example) to be able to have news that
anyone can consider accurate. Even when they are telling the truth this is hard to
know if it not another lie.

Stop selling analog TV

[jonsmirl]

When are they going to stop selling analog only TVs? The stores are still full of them. Every one of these that gets sold only makes the problem worse.

That's one hell of a TV

[bitspotter]

$1.5 Billion dollars
Divided by 300 million Americans
=
** $5,000 ** PER PERSON (not just per household!) ...that's gonna be one HUGE flatscreen in 2009!

News Flash: slashdot has more than one reader

[raygundan]

I completely agree. I see this complaint waaaay too often-- it needs a name. There are enough people on slashdot that some subset of them will argue just about any position on a given issue. It's not inconsistency-- it's that not everyone on slashdot is exactly the same person.

Re:The solution to poverty

[crabpeople]

"There is no "solution to poverty." "

tax the rich
feed the poor
till there are
no rich no more

also everyone in this discussion (especially mr scented cone, who must have a pretty sweet job to be posting all day) should watch status anxiety and the ownership society. it addresses all these issues and more.

basically the guy argues that the culture americans (and indeed the world now adays) lives in is completly based around accumulation of wealth. That should be pretty obvious to anyone who doesnt have alot of wealth. Then he goes on to say that this culture, which has replaced christianity as the ideology of our times, creates status anxiety. Status is being determined more and more by your $ value. He also illustrates why it wasnt always that way.

you can get it from mininova.org its like 2gigs. you people probably wont like it though as it kinda invalidates your life.

Here comes the DRM

[bitspotter]

Of course! Why didn't I see it before?

The industry wants to lock up all their content behind encrypted DRM formats. Only new TVs will understand them. It's hard enough getting manufacturers to agree on a standard, so they lobby government to mandate one. More importantly, it's hard to push the consuming public into a forced upgrade - so, like geniuses, they //lobby government to buy it for them//.

Brilliant!

Multiple Sets

[Anonymous Coward]

In our house (in the UK) we use a whole bunch of tangled wires and analogue signal splitters so we can all watch different channels in different rooms simultaneously. With the digital stuff, it seems that each house will need a new digital reciever of some kind to do this.

From my experience, this reciever (Sky box, NTL box, whatever) can only be used in one room at any time... can anybody clarify whether or not this is the case?

(and argh, slashdot doesn't want to send me my password! wahhh!)

FactCheck!

[GarfBond]

Here's a nice article from factcheck.org on the subject: Ad Pushes Digital TV - But Doesn't Tell The Whole Story

Telecom companies pushing for a forced conversion to all-digital television broadcasts ran ads in Washington DC and elsewhere highlighting benefits for firemen, police officers, and other "first responders," who stand to receive improved communications capabilities and gear. The ad calls digital TV a "win-win solution" benefiting both consumers and the emergency responders.

The ad is true as far as it goes, but misleading because it implies that the digital-TV bill taking shape in Congress would have only winners. In fact, there would be losers, too. According to the GAO, an estimated 21 million households now get TV only through a standard, analog TV set, and would be forced either to junk their set and buy a new digital set, or to obtain a new converter that manufacturers estimate will cost about $50.

Also not mentioned is that taxpayers will be asked to contribute up to $3 billion to subsidize the conversion. That money would come from the proceeds expected from auctioning off some of the airwaves now used by TV broadcasters.

The funding of the ad is also something of a mystery. One source told us it was financed by Motorola, which stands to profit from the transition by selling new police, fire and emergency radio equipment. Motorola wouldn't confirm that, nor would they deny it.

A visit to /......

[Anonymous Coward]

... kills my USB keyboard. Is there something I dont know about keyboards or is it because my tinfoil hat is off. If the /. operators want todo pranks, I got some up my sleeve;)

Digital tv

[smoker2]

Firstly, I have seen so many comments from people who have no idea what they talking about, viz. equipment. So here's a link to the UK Freeview sites FAQ page.
Freeview is the name for free digital tv in the UK.

Secondly, the service is mostly ok, but as I commented last time this subject came up, it is subject to interference, which renders it unwatchable. Also, there are times when I lose 5 or 6 channels for maybe 3 days at a time. It's not just me or my equipment either, as I talked to someone today who complained about losing the same channels as me at the same time. And he is receiving from a completely different transmitter.

So my main problem with digital tv is the crappy service. There is a slight advantage in the fact that because channels are multiplexed within several different frequencies, you can actually get a pc add on card that can "tune" to 2 different channels within the same multiplex at the same time, with only one tuner on the card.

DRM and politics are areas where we'll have to wait and see ...

Iraq, Middle East...

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to step in it, but is that Why we want a democracy there? It is hard to take oil from a single-minded dictator, religous entity than a group of self-interested public and their "voted" spokespeople.

nuff said

Move to digital, or the terrorists win!

[damned_mediocrity]

From TFA: Once TV stations switch to digital transmission, they will return to the government a big chunk of the radio spectrum they currently use to transmit their analog channels. Some of that spectrum will go to first responders -- police, fire and public safety officials -- so they can better communicate with one another. Breakdowns in emergency communication slowed the response to the September 11 terrorist attacks and Hurricane Katrina.

Why, why WHY? Why must the government/media always raise the specter of terrorism and "national security," even when it's clearly only peripherally related?

Come on, let's be honest. This legislation for a mandatory switch to digital has always been about money. The switch to digital allows the media companies to use all sorts of nifty DRM, like broadcast flags, to prevent unauthorized copying. A lot of people stand to make a whole hell of a lot of money from this, and the average consumer has a lot to lose (obsolete TVs, VCRs, DVRs, etc).

It's about MONEY, for chrissake. So let's NOT talk about terrorism here. Let's NOT invoke the name of September Eleventh when talking about digital TV.

Sure, ONE side effect of this legistlation is that we'll have more free radio spectrum, which emergency responders MAY eventually utilize, which MAY help in emergency situations. But the fact that this is a POSSIBILITY does NOT necessitate linking digital TV with "protection from terrorism!" Unfortunately, the ads being run and the articles being written are doing just that.

DISH has

[/dev/trash]

TV with Tuner and a package deal.

The truth behind NTSC - ATSC

[kimvette]

This is what I believe:

I believe the real reason behind the forced switch is so that the government's pet vendors can buy scads of bandwidth on the cheap and then resell/relicense those rights to companies which cannot afford to get in on the bidding process. This also provides the benefit of eliminating fair use rights (e.g., broadcast flags) which is supported by so many senators who own stakes in MPAA member and broadcast companies. Do you think John Doe's startup will have a shot in hell of winning any auctions for bandwidth for the next invention by a small company? Hell no, Google, Microsoft, Dell, NBC, Citadel, Clearchannel, etc. will buy it up all on speculation, just like real estate speculators and domain squatters.

The auctioning off of bandwidth will effectively save $10bil from the budget? Big. Fooking. Deal. Doesn't the government blow that much every single week in Iraq? Recall the troops to save money. Let the Middle Eastern countries sort out their own bullshit themselves; we shouldn't foot the bill for everyone else's problems.

There is no benefit to forcing the switch when most televisions on the market are still NTSC. I still cannot find a portable ATSC set. TV audio receivers (blind people buy them) don't pick up ATSC broadcasts. People who buy wristwatch TVs (a couple are in production, Seiko's first in the 1980s wasn't the only one ever) are buying what will be a useless trinket, most (nearly all) PC tuner cards are still NTSC-only.

Reality TV will be just as lame whether broadcast in NTSC, low-res ATSC, or HDTV. Stargate, Futurama, Arrested Development, and The Simpsons are all equally entertaining on NTSC as they would be in HDTV.

HDTV will reveal that "actresses" in your precious pr0n really are not so perfect. On E! you'll notice that Jessica Simpson has acne, on the news you'll notice John Kerry's botox treatments worked.

Football may be improved with HDTV (I wouldn't know - football bores me with the commercial breaks every two seconds). I'd love to see hockey on HDTV - if anything would make me lust after HDTV it would definitely be hockey.

My next television will be an HDTV - because I obviously don't want a paperweight LCD panel when the cutover happens - but from what I've seen of HDTV so far, I'm underwhelmed. DiscoveryHD is amazing, but watching the Discovery HD channel is like listening to a Dolby or DTS test disc over and over. If I want such a close look at a flower, I'll go hiking and look at them IRL.

NTSC -> ATSC
Net gain: ????

Net loss: broadcast flag eliminating fair use, folks in fringe reception areas will have NO picture rather than a fuzzy picture, every portable and mobile TV receiver will be useless, and there is no real benefit. At all.

Re:Damned if you live near the border?

[Jetson]

Some of that spectrum will go to first responders -- police, fire and public safety officials -- so they can better communicate with one another.

So what's going to happen along the borders with Canada and Mexico if both countries are still using that spectrum for TV broadcasts? Obviously, the Canadian/Mexican TV stations will get an increased audience, but will we be trying to filter the Seattle police/fire radios out of our TV signal or vice-versa?

Good thing I'm here to sort it out for you:

[Hosiah]

Here's the problem: Our household decided recently that the $140/month pricetag for the cable monopoly in our area was too much - particularly when we considered that we got fewer than 100 channels for this money and that the damn system was broken more often than it was fixed. We quit all paid forms of television. Now, we live where it snows and tornados alot, so we need to be able to see the local news in the morning to see if the school buses will be running. Also under emergency weather conditions, it can literally be a life-and-death matter to know what tornado is hitting in the area and which way it's heading.

We could care less about the entertainment content - DVDs are now so cheap, we figured if we buy ten new shows on disk per month, that's about as often as we watched TV for entertainment anyway, we'd save money and not have to put up with commercials. VCR tapes are still out there, too, even cheaper, and we have quite a few we haven't even watched once yet. The three computers in the house help; when I can assemble second-hand hardware and run free software that will show most online media formats (my wife even keeps tabs on Survivor and Big Brother this way, for a group she moderates.), TV matters even less.

We could also care less about a government voucher. We don't *need* TV-welfare, we need the system that's been in place for fifty years without hurting anybody to be left alone. Because bet your bum that it'll end up being a new way to rip everybody off in the long run.

Anybody remember the advent of cable TV? The big selling point was supposed to be better quality and no commercials. Well, that didn't last long: Where we used to get some 200 channels counting UHF and well-equipped antenna setups, we now get half as many channels broadcasting the same crap with just as many commercials - if not more - than before. Only difference is, we get robbed for it. What suckers we've been! And we'll be that kind of sucker again if this goes through.

What this will make us do is simply throw away every TV in the house, period, except the ones hooked up to VCR/DVD, and just hope to God they don't take away our Firefox Forecast-Fox plugin to track the damn storms. Which I'm waiting on any day now.

Connectivity

[ajs318]

I read that US TV sets don't usually have SCART sockets {which have been required in Europe since the 1980s and Britain since the 1990s}. Is this still the case?

At least in the UK/EU, one can be confident in the ability to attach other devices to an analogue TV set and go straight to the tube, bypassing the RF tuner and possibly even the colour-decoding matrix {necessary where there is a weirdy mix of VHF and UHF, PAL and SECAM colour schemes, and different audio modulation schemes [AM and FM analogue and NICAM digital] and subcarriers; at least they all use 25 pictures per second of 625 lines, or 50x312.5 depending how you look at it}. A "fully-wired" SCART socket provides for RGB+sync+audio, a "part-wired" socket provides for composite video and audio {sometimes S-VHS and audio} and it's done using a transparent compatibility mode {same pin used for composite video or just sync signal, carries a full picture signal but if RGB is available, picture information is taken from RGB inputs instead}.

The net result is that anything with a SCART socket should plug into anything else with a SCART socket and just work. And it does. Honestly, if you haven't got them, you need to ask why not.

NTSC more than good enough for most folks...

[Ellis D. Tripp]

I started my electronics career repairing TV sets, and part of the job was housecalls for consoles and projection sets too bulky to haul into the shop. You would be AMAZED what crappy video some folks are used to. I can't count the number of times that, after carefully adjusting brightness, contrast, saturation and tint using test patterns, and obtaining the best image that the set was capable of, I would hear the customer complain , and promptly screw with controls so everyone washed out and turned purple or green, and be happy as a pig in S***! :)

According to a story right here on /.:

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/09/064721 8&tid=129&tid=186

, 25% of the people who plunk down the $$$ to buy an HD set are watching standard NTSC, anyway, but just can't tell! Didn't surprise me at all...

Re: ! increasing as much as planned != cutting bac

[Anonymous Coward]

and for you too apparently.

I was just thinking.

[Kanasta]

When I move and get my own furniture, what will I get for a TV?

It hadn't crossed my mind at all there'd be a choice of digital or not. They're still selling pure analog TVs right? I may be a computer nerd, but I have no idea what advantages digital is supposed to give me.

Actually, maybe I can skip this mess and not get a TV at all. Better to get my shows online in a timely fashion.

So everyone who watches TV is a welfare baby?

[bobalu]

Yes, why don't you go ahead and demonize SUV owners while you're at it? Because eveyone is the same, right? By the way, we're outlawing all those useless game consoles next month because I think they're a waste of time and make society worse. Not to mention you could be spending all that time and money on your education. What's the difference?

The whole point of the bill is to provide a path for people who are low-income or rural and do not have the $$$ for a new digital TV. CRTs last 15 years and a lot of people will still have one in three years. I think it's stupid, but it's an understandable political response to the old folks complaining. To a lot of elders and shut-ins that TV might be their main link to the outside, and they do not have the dough to get a new plasma screen.

Your assertion that TV in and of itself makes society worse in every way is just that, and no more. I happen to enjoy it, and when I don't I turn the channel or turn it off. I wish the gang-bangers in town would spend more time watching the Comedy Channel instead of getting out and stabbing each other.

I suggest you go ahead and offer the grandparent poster the $80 if you're sincere. And let us know if it made the difference between him attending college or not. My guess is: not.

Re:So everyone who watches TV is a welfare baby?

[HiThere]

I don't need to demonize SUV drivers...they do it for themselves. They seem to feel that since they're driving a tank, they don't need to obey the traffic signs, just like cadillac drivers used to act. (Probably for the same reason.)

I say "Let them *win* Darwin awards...but not with MY help!"

Re:So everyone who watches TV is a welfare baby?

[drinkypoo]

Well, I do think that TV is a net negative influence on society. On the other hand, I am not in favor of terminating television because it's used more for ill than for good. If I were, then supporting P2P would be awfully hypocritical, wouldn't it? However, I am definitely not in favor of vouchers to help people watch television, given its nature.

Re:Materially False

[Dahan]

Face it, you got pwned big time. YHL. HAND.

Re:The solution to poverty

[ScentCone]

mr scented cone, who must have a pretty sweet job to be posting all day

Oh, come on. I'm on call 7 days a week, and put in about 70 hours a week. I've had about a week and half actually "off" in the last 5 years. And, um.... haven't posted since last year. Heh. Which you should know, since you're stalking me. Or are secretly amused by contrarians, it's hard to tell.

It's interesting, though, that you should point out status anxiety, relative to a discussion about tax-based redistribution of wealth. I note that the person with the most status anxiety here is the guy to whom I first responded, who seems very anxious about status, indeed. Not anxious enough to propose any solution other than re-arranging other people's bank accounts, though, as opposed to, say, addressing the actual issues that keep people working in starter jobs their entire lives (mostly, demographics with an active disdain for education).

Groundhog Day.

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's not inconsistency-- it's that not everyone on slashdot is exactly the same person."

Actually it's irrelevent weither we're one person, or a clustered multitude. As long as everyone's (hehe) acting like an island and ignoring their neighbours, individual change will never come, and we all will be here tomorrow going through the same motions.

The old sets won't be obsolete

[Anonymous Coward]

TV in Australia has long gone digital, and many people use their old analog TV sets with US$40 Tandy "set-top" boxes. The ST box accepts standard-definition digital broadcast (via any old analog aerial) and outputs analog signal (on a co-axial cable) for the old TV.

I've used one for three years with a desktop TV, I did NOT buy it for picture quality (of course an analog TV screen doesn't get any higher resolution than before). I bought it because I live in the forest where analog TV reception was constantly ghosted with static in the sound. Using the terrestrial standard definition ST box gives me pictures as clear as when I plug in my dvd player, and the sound is now cd-quality sound.

The funniest time was when I had home theatre speakers with a 7 inch battery powered casio screen displaying the digital broadcast! Cowboy Neal might agree that TV content is easier to doubt when the news presenters and celebrities are only 12 inches tall.

Re:The solution to poverty

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah on call is worse than full time. sorry.

btw im white from a middle class family and had plenty of shitty minimum wage jobs with very hard working co workers who just have bad luck, so i dont think it really has anything to do with "demographics".

you should watch that movie

this is really mild stalking come on. your just wrong most of the time. i dont look at usernames but whenever you post within 2 paragraphs i know its you and look up at the name. its happened many many times. as i mentioned before its because your completly turned around from "reality".. imho

Digital looks good even for a crappy TV set

[speedlaw]

I get local TV from a roof antenna, with a perfect analog signal and 90% or more HDTV signals. I've a line of sight with my local transmitters, about 40 miles away. Downstairs is a real HDTV set, which gets all the NY metro area HD stations. Of Course, the picture is great. Upstairs is the real surprise. I'm feeding a ten year old junk Sharp TV with a HiSense HDTV set top box. (199 at Wal Mart) The picture is fantastic. While I get a very strong normal VHF analog picture, the digital picture eliminates "dot crawl", and the tendency of NTSC pictures to fluctuate color. The "grainy" look is gone, and for an old 480i TV, the stability of the colors is a revelation. I'm using a single video feed, all the TV accepts other than RF, and it is DVD quality. Even for the lamest analog TV, Digital will result in an improved picture. It clears up some of the known issues with SDTV. If you get SDTV by cable TV, I am sure your picture has major flaws. Much like American beer, if you are used to it you don't know, but once you are exposed to better, it becomes glaringly clear how bad it is. I can't watch TV at a few friend's homes due to sh#$ty cable signals. Now, having to set up an HDTV, with the Cable Company's HD box, that's a different story...you'll have some work to do once the cable tech leaves, with the box in "easy mode". The problem is that each HDTV setup needs a geek to make it work.

They can't handle their customer base

[tekrat]

The infrastructure is not up to the task of delivering a digital HDTV signal to every home in America. The cable companies *think* they can handle the load, but they are way wrong.

There are old buildings with old wires, and as the signal strength decreases before it gets to the TV set (or converter box), the loss of signal will create all kinds of glitches.

Bad taps in lock boxes in basements can cause signal breakup, loss of signal entirely, and all manner of artifacting, including, but not limited to extreme pixelation of the image and audio degradation to the point of inaudibility.

In short; the cable companies could find themselves having to re-wire a large percentage of inner-urban areas where the loss of TV entirely for large percentages of the population could even lead to riots.

Worst is that they are in for a surprise when it still won't work because of other equipment failures between their origination point and the destination box.

The cable companies, used to short-changing their customer base and providing the lowest service at the higest prices, will suddenly find itself in the unenviable position of actually having to do WORK to make it all happen. And they aren't going to want to pay for it, having already spent their government subsidies on yachts for the upper executives.

In short, they aren't ready to handle even their existing customer base.

Re:They can't handle their customer base

[speedlaw]

Correct ! I once worked in a building development, Starrett City in Brooklyn, where they have about 30 large apartment buildings. One day, our TV feed (centralized system) went out. I felt bad for the shut ins who called building maintenece (I was answering phones for repairs), but a lot of the people were PISSED they could not get their soap operas and crap TV. The opiate of the masses is not religion...it's the sort of TV /.tters disdain, but keep in mind someone's watching it...enough to support the whole industry. Shut off free tv in a lot of places, then people would begin to talk to each other, and maybe wonder why things are not the way they should be. Remember, the problem with the USA is not a lack of resources...it is the gross misallocation of resources, with the right wingnuts setting a chorus so those who are screwed by the system can find an "other" to blame...not our "leaders".

Unrealistic expectations

[tcgroat]

Some of that spectrum will go to first responders -- police, fire and public safety officials -- so they can better communicate with one another. Breakdowns in emergency communication slowed the response to the September 11 terrorist attacks and Hurricane Katrina. New spectrum should help.

That means duplication or replacement of most existing public safety radio equipment. Since the departments barely have the budgets to maintain the existing systems, where will the money come from to buy, install, and maintain all the new ones? Interoperability was a goal even before 9/11. It still hasn't happened because nobody is willing to pay for it. New spectrum won't help without the equipment to use it.

The rest of the spectrum will be auctioned off to the highest bidders -- probably tech companies. The sale of this valuable, scarce real estate is expected to bring in about $10 billion, maybe more. That will help reduce the federal budget deficit...Scheduled for 2008, the auction will be the biggest spectrum sale since a 1994-95 spectrum auction. That sale helped boost the mobile phone industry, boosting the number of cell phone subscribers in the U.S. from 24 million to 200 million. It also helped drive down the cost of wireless minutes from an average of 47 cents a minute to 9 cents a minute, according to analysis from financial services firm Stifel Nicolaus.

First, recall the huge expenditures needed for new public safety radio equipment. That alone is likely to consume all the auction revenue.

Second, recall the telcom bust that followed the '94-'95 land grab. The survivors remember the financial bloodbath that resulted from that bidding war, and are unlikely to spend so profligately again. The principle of supply and demand strongly suggests that declining air-time prices are symptoms of excess capacity. Why would the telcoms pay billions for more, when they need huge discounts to sell what they already have?

Converter Box != Broadcast Flag?

[tekrat]

Okay; lemme get this straight. You can use your old TV, but, you'll be using it through a converter box which outputs an analog signal. But there's a Broadcast flag to prevent you from recording stuff. Nani?

Can't I just plug my old VHS machine into the converter box's analog output and tape shows to my heart's content? So, I can still time shift and/or grab stuff into my computer for posting on bittorrent, yes? I fail to understand how this is going to affect anyone with old equipment and a converter box. Yes, once all the old equipment dies and we're all stuck using pure digital equipment 20 years from now, this is an issue, but, what's the problem currently?

And in 20 years, there will be a new standard anyhow which will make the digital stuff obsolete, and we start this upgrade cycle all over again, ala Blue_ray...

TTYL
Techrat

Re:Converter Box != Broadcast Flag?

[mobets]

Can't I just plug my old VHS machine into the converter box's analog output and tape shows to my heart's content?

Yes, but it will be lower quality, not the fancy Digital and/or HD. That is what they seem to be conserned with.

Re:The solution to poverty

[ScentCone]

this is really mild stalking come on

I was joking, relax.

your just wrong most of the time

Well, no, but that's OK - you definitely see things from a different perspective.

you post within 2 paragraphs i know its you

Well, then, at least I'm consistent, I guess. A lot of people seem to find my comments at least interesting enough to stir up some conversation, and plenty actually agree with me on a topic here and there. I'm definitely not a typical slashdot user, philosophically, that's for sure. But if a few people stop and re-evaluate a couple things based on hearing a different observation than what they'd normally get from the /. echo-chamber, then I've accomplished something.

TV sets on Cardboard boxes

[tekrat]

When I think of all the places I see TVs thrown about casually as background noise... Bars, Diners, chinese take-out, jiffy-lube, security desks, laundromats, barber shops, and on top of cardboard boxes owned by the homeless, I can't help but wonder what's going to happen to all those sets when the analog signal they all depend upon is suddenly cut off.

Most of the places I just named don't get cable, and they don't want the added do-hickie of a converter box, because the TV is just a prop and a distraction while you're really doing something else.

It seems to me that these are the people that are REALLY going to be inconvenienced by this switch-over, as, suddenly, no TV and nobody in these places has the money or ability to do the "upgrade".

What, are the landfills going to be full of TVs in 2009? Mmmmm. Mmmmm. Mercury.

What use are the lower frequency channels?

[qubezz]

The rest of the spectrum will be auctioned off to the highest bidders -- probably tech companies. The sale of this valuable, scarce real estate is expected to bring in about $10 billion, maybe more. That will help reduce the federal budget deficit.

Better yet, when the spectrum is sold off, the companies that buy it will use it to develop new technology and services. Cheap, ubiquitous wireless broadband access is one possibility. Mobile TV or music services are others.


I think this is optimistic. TV stations are giving up VHF frequencies 55MHz-211MHz, and getting UHF frequencies closer to 600MHz for their digital stations. If you need a physics refresher, the broadcast frequency is directly proportional to the amount of information that can be carried in a broadcast (ignoring bandwidth), making the UHF frequencies TV stations are getting more valueable than the VHF ones they are giving up. The higher the frequency, the more favorable it is to data transmission. This makes this more a handout to TV stations of the higher frequencies that would be otherwise useful to high tech. Of course a terrestrial version of a service like Sirius satellite radio could still be jammed in the space used for two tv channels.

Other digital data broadcasts also use much higher frequencies: Satellite Radio: 2350MHz, Wireless networking: 2400MHz, 5000MHz. Satellite TV: 12700MHz

As an aside, what if if a broadcast TV network 'bought back' the right to use the frequency for channel 2, for example, nationwide? Doubtless the auctions will be nationwide licenses so that they benefit the biggest corporations and exclude smaller regional bidders. ABC-TV could buy back channel 2 and resume analog TV broadcasting across the country!

What happens to the old TVs?

[NardofDoom]

I don't have a TV, and don't want one anymore, so this doesn't really apply to me. However, a lot of people aren't going to understand and are going to buy a new TV. What happens to the lead and mercury-filled box they're getting rid of? Is there a free electronics recycling program out there that I'm not aware of?

No it's not

[wiredog]

You get a check for every month you're in school. The amount of the check has nothing to do with the tuition.

T'aint just the money, honey

[ModelerRick]

Even if the gummint gives us all new digital TVs, a fair number of us might still have problems getting our soap operas over the air.

I live 10 miles north of the capitol of North Carolina. I've got an HDTV receiver which receives digital satellite and terrestrial analog and digital signals. The Raleigh area has had digital broadcasts for quite a long time, WRAL-TV, the local CBS affiliate was one of the very early pioneers in digital broadcasting.

The broadcast towers for the local stations in this area which I'd like to receive are at two bearings from my house. The PBS station is in one direction, and the others are pretty much clustered in another. I can usually watch the OTA PBS digital broadcasts, but more often than not my receiver CANNOT lock onto any of the other local digital broadcasts because of multi-path distortion.

The nice thing about digital TV is that you get a nice clear picture if you can lock on to the signal.

The bad thing is that although you don't have to deal with snowy pictures, instead of a snowy picture you get nothing.

I've thought about solving the problem, which would likely involve either a small antenna farm with one or more directional antennas, or a directional antenna with a rotator. Neither of which would be necessary even if I were watching analog tv now rather than relying on DirectTV.

The digital broadcast standards which the FCC picked for us are going to first make the fringe reception areas bigger, and then turn them into black holes.

Does this really make sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

Better yet, when the spectrum is sold off, the companies that buy it will use it to develop new technology and services. Cheap, ubiquitous wireless broadband access is one possibility. Mobile TV or music services are others.

Hey I got a great idea lets move TV broadcasting to digital give them new bandwidth, take away the old and then sell the old right back to them. This should make us tons of money.

That's awfully simplistic.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think alot of us _were_ looking forward to HDTV around 1996 or so when this was initially proposed.

The DMCA, DTSCA, broadcast flag, CSS, Macrovision, BlueRay drive-locked discs, Sony rootkits, MPAA region coding, forced ads, RIAA suing grandmas and kindergarteners, etc combined with the outright gouging we're subject to on hardware (sub $1000 widescreen yet anyone?) as well as software (to say nothing of the declining picture quality that started when MPEG became a standard) have just really really hurt and surprise surprise the support's not there anymore.

Thing is, I got 14 TV's

[DASCOM2000]

Does anyone think the $40 is going to get me back up when they turn off the VHF.
I really should get a life, maybe later, my show is on.

antennas

[snooo53]

Although I do not personally have one I have heard rave reviews with OTA digital and the Channel Master 4221 and 4228 models, so you may look into those. Not expensive at all, but a little tacky if you don't like stuff on your roof

roots

[catahoula10]

DTV has its roots from line 21 EIA-708
closed captioning. Which is actually a left over from 1970's technology that has been reworked and reworked.

Many arguments on /. say DTV will free up airwaves for first responders. And it will. But why can't we find a new technology in communications for the first
responders, and, create a new industry as well as jobs in the process. This issue was around long before the need for more airwaves. So that being connected to this issue is moot.

This issue goes beyond the arguments I have read on /. so far. The real issue is a handful of companies are allowed to persuade congress to basically force everyone in America to accept this technology.

IMHO this is the same as a few large businesses being able to force people to sell their homes to make way for progress.

Is progress needed? Yes. Do we need ram it down everyone else's throat? No. We do not have a land shortage in America, but we do have over crowed cities. We also have the ability to create communication devices without mandating everyone in America purchase this technology or an adapter to continue using the old technology.