WWTBAM Bored

WASHINGTON — President-elect Barack Obama is urging Congress to postpone the Feb. 17 switch from analog to digital television broadcasting, arguing that too many Americans who rely on analog TV sets to pick up over-the-air channels won't be ready.

In a letter to key lawmakers Thursday, Obama transition team co-chair John Podesta noted that the Commerce Department has run out of money for coupons to subsidize digital TV converter boxes for consumers.

WheresFanny wrote:Do that many people really still have non digital televisions?

littlebeast13 wrote:

WheresFanny wrote:Do that many people really still have non digital televisions?

We sell buttloads of converters, so apparently, yes.....

lb13

WheresFanny wrote:Do that many people really still have non digital televisions?

And, if somebody actually has a real answer for this, why is the Commerce Department giving people converter boxes, anyway? Since when is watching television an inalienable right? Nobody gave me a coupon for a cd player when they stopped making vinyl.

WheresFanny wrote:Do that many people really still have non digital televisions?

And, if somebody actually has a real answer for this, why is the Commerce Department giving people converter boxes, anyway? Since when is watching television an inalienable right? Nobody gave me a coupon for a cd player when they stopped making vinyl.

And I'd be willing to be that the reason they ran out of money for coupons is because people were getting them (and getting as many as they could) and getting converter boxes whether they needed them or not. Because "it's free", or "maybe I can sell it" or "I might be able to use it for something" or whatever.

WheresFanny wrote:Do that many people really still have non digital televisions?

And, if somebody actually has a real answer for this, why is the Commerce Department giving people converter boxes, anyway? Since when is watching television an inalienable right? Nobody gave me a coupon for a cd player when they stopped making vinyl.

And I'd be willing to be that the reason they ran out of money for coupons is because people were getting them (and getting as many as they could) and getting converter boxes whether they needed them or not. Because "it's free", or "maybe I can sell it" or "I might be able to use it for something" or whatever.

I suspect that there's a lot of people who have TVs in odd rooms that aren't hooked into cable or satellite that they don't feel like upgrading.

silverscreenselect wrote:

WheresFanny wrote:Do that many people really still have non digital televisions?

And, if somebody actually has a real answer for this, why is the Commerce Department giving people converter boxes, anyway? Since when is watching television an inalienable right? Nobody gave me a coupon for a cd player when they stopped making vinyl.

The government didn't tell the record companies not to make LPs and switch to CDs. They did tell the TV stations to switch to digital.

We have two TVs that aren't hooked up to our satellite system, one in the bathroom and one tiny one in the kitchen. We will probably move a bigger TV that we're not currently using into the kitchen and use our two converters on them, if and when we ever get them.

I suspect that there's a lot of people who have TVs in odd rooms that aren't hooked into cable or satellite that they don't feel like upgrading.

earendel wrote:I suspect you are correct in believing that there has been some shenanigans going on with the coupons/boxes, but it seems to me that people have known about this for quite some time and if they decided to wait until the last minute, too bad.

Jeemie wrote:

WheresFanny wrote:Do that many people really still have non digital televisions?

And, if somebody actually has a real answer for this, why is the Commerce Department giving people converter boxes, anyway? Since when is watching television an inalienable right? Nobody gave me a coupon for a cd player when they stopped making vinyl.

And I'd be willing to be that the reason they ran out of money for coupons is because people were getting them (and getting as many as they could) and getting converter boxes whether they needed them or not. Because "it's free", or "maybe I can sell it" or "I might be able to use it for something" or whatever.

Normally, I'd agree with you, but since the switchover from analog to digital is a government mandate and not a market-driven thing, then it's only right that the government pay for us to make the switch.

WheresFanny wrote:But people aren't relying (the reason in the original quote) on those sets. Progress shouldn't be set back for months just because somebody can't watch Good Morning America while they're taking a crap. And I don't feel that the government (and, ultimately, the people) should have to pay so people can watch Good Morning America while they're taking a crap.

WheresFanny wrote:Again, when did watching television become an inalienable right worthy of government subsidy? I think (although I'm not sure) that it was a government edict that leaded gas be phased out, but the government didn't care that my 73 LTD wouldn't run properly on unleaded gas.

Jeemie wrote:

WheresFanny wrote:Again, when did watching television become an inalienable right worthy of government subsidy? I think (although I'm not sure) that it was a government edict that leaded gas be phased out, but the government didn't care that my 73 LTD wouldn't run properly on unleaded gas.

That was due to a health and safety issue.

This change is not.

There is no health, safety, or market reason for making this change.

None whatsoever.

And while it is not an inalienable right to watch TV, in point of fact the government is placing an economic burden on the country for no good reason.

Therefore, I have no problem in this case of the government offsetting such a burden.

ghostjmf wrote:If Fanny wants to buy me, & to be fair, & we should always be fair, shouldn't we, lots & lots of similarly "deprived" people who see no reason to trash a TV set which works just because someone came out with a new technology & wants to sell it to us, we will provide Fanny with our shipping addresses for those HDTVs she will be sending us, so we can be keeping up with the Fannies of this world. Which of course is supposed to be my aim in life, right?

WheresFanny wrote:

ghostjmf wrote:If Fanny wants to buy me, & to be fair, & we should always be fair, shouldn't we, lots & lots of similarly "deprived" people who see no reason to trash a TV set which works just because someone came out with a new technology & wants to sell it to us, we will provide Fanny with our shipping addresses for those HDTVs she will be sending us, so we can be keeping up with the Fannies of this world. Which of course is supposed to be my aim in life, right?

And, in return, I will send you my address so you can come over and kiss my ass.

Rexer25 wrote:Sometimes I want to insult Fanny just so she can put me in my place while making me laugh.

minimetoo26 wrote:My dad cancelled his paper because he was reading it online most of the time. Then he had his cable disconnected for non-payment (he lost the bill and by the time they sent a new one it was double and he said screw it, or some such deal that happens with him these days) so he has no cable or internet service. Which means he gets his news from talk radio, mostly.

I will personally pay for him to get a converter box if that's what it takes for him to be less isolated from the world. But for a bunch of folks, that $40 was the difference between a fill-up at $2 a gallon vs $4 a gallon, so I'll blame Exxon for the delay. Why the hell not?

WheresFanny wrote:My main question remains, what makes watching television a life's necessity worthy of government assistance and Congressional intervention?