Slashdot Mirror
Billion Dollar Handout To Upgrade TVs
db32 writes "SFGate has the story of the cutoff date for those rabbit ear antennas that some of us grew up with (Feb. 19, 2009). Now while the story of analog vs. digital TV has been beaten to death, still I think there is something more here. 'The Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration... said it is setting aside $990 million to pay for the boxes. Each home can request up to two $40 coupons for a digital-to-analog converter box, which consumer electronics makers such as RCA and LG plan to produce.' Beyond my disdain for most TV to begin with, I am blown away that with all of our current problems — homelessness and crime on the home front, war fighting and terrorism abroad — our government is seriously going to spend this much money on upgrading peoples' televisions."
If spending $1B ensures that the majority of citizens can watch TV, especially news, it is money well spent. Where and how else would you be able to deliver your messages to the mass simultaneously?
Imagine the chaos when people have to access "news" from various/conflicting sources, and start coming up with their own minds.
Virtual Betting on Facebook for non-geeks.
...with all of our current problems -- homelessness and crime on the home front, war fighting and terrorism abroad...This argument can be used to make almost any expenditure look silly. I can't believe, with all of the homelessness, that our government is [sponsoring arts programs | paying for students to take field trips | building monuments to fallen soldiers | repaving roads |
Just because you have certain problems, doesn't mean that you do without anything else, until those problems are solved.
Then again, I can't believe that you bought yourself a television, when you could have donated your money to fight homelessness, etc...
I'm a small government, small federal budget kind of guy, and I rarely approve of federal spending, but this I agree with. If the government passes a law that makes my otherwise perfectly useful TV obsolete, they damn well better help me upgrade.
"Bread and Circuses". It's all you need to placate the populace. Getting things done might be productive, but cheap entertainment is so much easier.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
If you deny the peasants their bread and circuses, they might just up and start paying attention to the world around them, and realize that their government is whittling away their freedoms one by one.
By the way, the plan to allocate these funds was announced back when the FCC announced plans to force migration to digital -- years ago.
I'm obviously not as pessimistic at the world as you are because I think that's complete garbage, but assuming you're correct: If a person thinks they are happy, who cares? Are you going to try and prove to a happy person that are, in fact, just as angry and boring as you are? What's the point? Leave them in their happiness.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
Uhh, bullshit. We haven't been able to buy affordable digital receivers, ever. In fact, there's still no affordable digital receivers - they're all built into expensive HDTV's.
It's not "just fucking television." It's a MASSIVE consumer market. The government would do this as much for the consumer as for the industry that doesn't want a good fraction of their viewer base cut off. The government makes a lot of tax money from TV businesses.. or did you think it was all Wayne's World?
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
First off, I do think this is an example of wasteful government largesse. But I really hate the given justification.
How about, "Innocent people continue to be raped and murdered on their way home at night. And yet, the government continues to spend money on post office boxes. Is your child's life worth less than a post office box?"
The notion that because something is very important that it therefore innately subsumes all lesser priorities is not consistent with any form of logical cost benefit analysis. Rarely if ever is there a linear relation to investment and payoff in terms of moneys allocated to resolving social issues, and the sort of qualitative analysis you mentally apply to "homelessness" vs. "television" is an irrational and inappropriate way to compare what is actually a quantitative analysis of "unit payoff per unit investment to resolve homeless" and the corresponding.
Anyway, I think a better question than "how can the government waste money on instead of ?" might be "why do I trust the government to be responsible for these monies in the first place?" It's pretty much a given that, whatever Uncle Sam does 'for our own good' with our own money, ninety percent of us are going to pissed about it.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
Most isn't all. In fact it is under 60%, at least for cable. Remove 16 million and 12 Million for satellite subscribers, and that still leaves you with around 20 million households that are just doing over the air. I would venture that the bulk of these are people who do not have the means to get a new digital TV.
While I have the means to buy a digital TV, I am not about to say that it is fair we cut people who don't have the means off. I would call it a problem, and big or small this should be solved.
RonB
It is human nature to take shortcuts in thinking.
But how are we supposed to ignore our social problems without TV?
Its far more than capitalism, this is what drives evolution. Why on earth do Peacocks have such rediculous plumage? Is doesn't improve their ability to survive, and certainly other species can find mates w/o such massive shows. Man has been collecting worthless crap since we walked erect, seashells, pretty rocks, shiny baubles. Even the most primative tribes put on feasts to show their wealth to other tribes. It's what drives evolution.
If noone bought things they didn't need, we'd eliminate all jobs but agriculture and medicine with a 90+% unemplyment rate.
Get rid of manufacturing jobs and we'll all be working the fields, just like ancient Sumeria. There wil be no doctors because they be too busy growing their own food. You need tractors, irrigation, distribution networks, etc. so the 1% of farmers can grow enough food for the rest of us. Those in turn need energy, miners, etc for resources. The fact that a reasonably educated westerner can't figure out the resource allocation to accomplish the basic goal of feeding 600 million Americans is why Communism fails, and why government screws things up.
Consider:
1. The FCC controls airwave licenses.
2. A significant number of people out there do not have the means, or rightfully refuse to upgrade to a television capable of decoding over the air digital signals.
3. A significant number of people out there do not have the mans, or rightfully refuse to purchase cable and/or satellite service, yet they continue to watch TV via over the air signals.
4. Eliminating analog over the air signals will open up gobs of frequencies for other uses; including 2-way communications, IP communications, and more digital channels, both TV and radio.
5. Finally, $990 million is _nothing_ compared to how much auctioning off the new spectrum will generate in revenue for the FCC. The last auction generated something like $40 billion; $990 million in order to generate good will among the populace, and ensure that the working class (working poor) does not get cut off from their TV, is a win-win.
If the government didn't have a plan like this, most likely the analog over-the-air signals would end up continuing. This is a *bad* thing, as that spectrum is very valuable, and being used inefficiently.
Is this government intervention? Yes, of course it is. Unfortunately, this is a situation that libertarian's like myself have to learn to handle delicately, because it involves an actual *public* good, that being frequency spectrum.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Why on earth do Peacocks have such rediculous plumage? Is doesn't improve their ability to survive...
The hell it doesn't! That precisely what it's for. The guy with the most bling gets the chicks. And that's how they decide who's "worthy". That's how nature works, and that's what life is all about...getting laid and reproducing. Every single thing we do is for that explicit purpose. And that would include all the plumage and war trophies, and for that matter, that's what capitalism is all about. It is, and we are nature in its purest form.
Get rid of manufacturing jobs and we'll all be working the fields, just like ancient Sumeria. There wil be no doctors because they be too busy growing their own food.
All the manufacturing and agricultural work is supposed to be done by machines. We have the knowledge to live this way, but the subjugation of other humans seems to be more profitable, and natural for the moment. Contrary to what most of you might think, we really are not in control. We are still motivated by the most basic of instincts.
What?
Not true at all. The Amish only buy what they need - they are 100% (self) employed - not only as farmers, AND the community is thriving and growing exponentially all over the US. No TV's either.