Should the Government pay for digital converter boxes??

[DawnCt1]

Apparently in 2008, analog broadcasts will cease and all broadcasts will be digital. There is a bill before congress to provide, free of charge, to all tv viewers who still have an analog tv, a digital converter box. The cost of this will be in the range of $3.5 billion. I didn't realize that it was a right to watch tv and that the taxpayer has to foot the bill to update equipment for those who can't afford a tv capable of receiving a digital signal. This has to be the future recipient of The Golden Fleece Award!!!

 

[safetymom]

Who decided that they should have this? The government. Why should everyone have to run out and buy a new TV or converter box because of their ruling?

 

[caitycaity]

wow -- i agree with you dawn!

 

[LoraJ]

If someone wants to watch TV, they should get their own converter box.

 

[ead79]

If someone wants to watch TV, they should get their own converter box.

Yep, I agree.

 

[mickeyfan2]

If someone wants to watch TV, they should get their own converter box.

I totally agree. I'm sure the cable company can rent you a box to do this.

 

[richiebaseball]

Not only should they provide me with a digital converter box, they should also be required to provide me with buffalo wings and a six-pack on Sundays.

Richard

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Apparently in 2008, analog broadcasts will cease and all broadcasts will be digital. There is a bill before congress to provide, free of charge, to all tv viewers who still have an analog tv, a digital converter box. The cost of this will be in the range of $3.5 billion.

Another fine example that in Congress the inmates are running the asylum!

 

[caitycaity]

Not only should they provide me with a digital converter box, they should also be required to provide me with buffalo wings and a six-pack on Sundays.

Richard

 

[DawnCt1]

I totally agree. I'm sure the cable company can rent you a box to do this.

It will be a converter box to convert the analog signal over the airwaves as well, so you wouldn't have to have cable, as you don't now, to watch the air broadcast stations; cbs, nbc, abc, pbs, etc.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

It will be a converter box to convert the analog signal over the airwaves as well, so you wouldn't have to have cable, as you don't now, to watch the air broadcast stations; cbs, nbc, abc, pbs, etc.

With a few exceptions, there's precious little worth watching on the "air" broadcast networks. They could probably get the same or better ratings broadcasting a test pattern.

 

[DawnCt1]

Who decided that they should have this? The government. Why should everyone have to run out and buy a new TV or converter box because of their ruling?

Analog is an antiquated system of broadcasting so in 2008, it will become obsolete and all signals will go out as digitalized. The government is deciding that this is the way broadcasts will go, market forces are. Congress however, wants the tax payer to foot the bill for converter boxes for those people who still will have analog tvs when this happens. The analog tv is going the way of buggy whips. Do we still want the government to subsidize buggy whips?

 

[mickeyfan2]

Just in case anybody cares - An Analog station takes up way more bandwidth than does a digital station. If we stayed with only analog, we would be out of bandwidth and not be able to add additional stations that target a small group. When we switch to digital we open up much more bandwidth and thus more stations. Basically the airways are all divided and we can not "manufacture" more to accomidate more stations.

 

[Miss Jasmine]

Wasn't it supposed to be converted all ready??? It keeps getting pushed back.

Well whenever it happens, I am ready and I am NOT paying for those who are not.

 

[Donalds_best_pal]

Dont know if the goverment should foot the bill but its about time we totally switch to digital. Its to hard for stations now to have stuff in digital and non digital and having seperate stations even. I think they just need to set an end date or we would never totally switch over. Lots of countries have all ready gone all digital so we are kinda behind. Will open a whole new door of possible new advancements in the television world.

Matt

 

[Bob Slydell]

Wasn't it supposed to be converted all ready??? It keeps getting pushed back.

Well whenever it happens, I am ready and I am NOT paying for those who are not.

I've actually heard that it's going to be pushed back even more (I think I've heard 2010) to give people more time to buy digital-ready TV's.

I wonder, why is anyone even making (and why are stores still selling) analog sets?

 

[Miss Jasmine]

I've actually heard that it's going to be pushed back even more (I think I've heard 2010) to give people more time to buy digital-ready TV's.

I wonder, why is anyone even making (and why are stores still selling) analog sets?

Great question.

 

[KarenC]

I think there are far better places for taxpayer dollars than digital converter boxes, like paying down the deficit. But, since the government is mandating the switch from analog television to HDTV I could make an argument in favor of government subsidies for the boxes. I'm generally opposed to unfunded mandates.

I'm not up to speed on the reasons the government wants to outlaw television as we know it. But 2008 is an election year and I wouldn't want to be the politician who had to face his or her constituents after forcing them to pony up bucks to continue to watch TV.

 

[DawnCt1]

I think there are far better places for taxpayer dollars than digital converter boxes, like paying down the deficit. But, since the government is mandating the switch from analog television to HDTV I could make an argument in favor of government subsidies for the boxes. I'm generally opposed to unfunded mandates.

I'm not up to speed on the reasons the government wants to outlaw television as we know it. But 2008 is an election year and I wouldn't want to be the politician who had to face his or her constituents after forcing them to pony up bucks to continue to watch TV.

I believe that Mickeyfan2 said that we are running out of bandwidth. I don't see how anyone can make an arguement in favor of subsidies for the boxes. Its bad enough that we subsidize public tv. Since when is it a "right" to provide access to a television signal? $3.5 billion so people can watch The Price is Right? I don't think so.

 

[Jeff in BigD]

I think PBS since it is publically funded needs to stay analog or at least dual broadcast.

Whether or not PBS should be publically funded is another matter entirely.


To think that the entire country will be digital ready in 2 years is asinine.