Billion Dollar Handout To Upgrade TVs 663
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."
I'm blown away with (Score:1, Informative)
Yeah, this is chump change... (Score:4, Informative)
Seriously, the government knows that the incestuous US 'service' economy needs people to buy shit they don't need or it all collapses.
Makes perfect sense (Score:5, Informative)
Bread and Circuses (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses/ [wikipedia.org]
You don't understand at all.. (Score:5, Informative)
I use rabbit ears (well, hoop antenna) with my Mythbox and ATSC tuner card just freaking fine and record to my hearts content (it's technically easier/cheaper to implement a perfect ATSC capture card, than a decent analog capture card, a decent analog card needs some sort of on-the-fly encoding, ATSC card just need dump the MPEG2 stream out. I don't have any problem recording TV at all.
Broadcast DTV is not DRM-encumbered at all. Cable companies enjoy a bit more DRM that is harder to break than their analog channel scrambling, but that is a moot point for ending analog broadcast TV and helping people to have the new standard accessible.
Rabbit Ears aren't going anywhere (Score:5, Informative)
$8 to $10 billion the last time this came up (Score:5, Informative)
If I told you I would give you $10 for a $1 bill, would you take it?
Re:So what? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:They may, but they won't have to... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Makes perfect sense (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, the government should boost scientific research, but the way you're phrasing it is sort of a false dichotomy, especially because scientific stuff is the sort of thing that needs to funded semi-reliably on a year-by-year basis instead of just tossing researchers money when they happen to get their hands on some extra dough. Paying for converter boxes is something you only have to do once, though.
Rabbit Ear Antennas (Score:2, Informative)
Cheap Digital to Analog Converters Are Available (Score:2, Informative)
Well, if one considers $89.00 affordable, you can buy one right now on www.newegg.com: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82 E16882107049/ [newegg.com]
How do I know? I just bought one and it came yesterday. I was able to get 15 HDTV/DTV stations without issue (basically looked like a DVD on my analog set but still pretty good). When combined with the $40 coupon that the government proposes to issue, boxes like these will be quite affordable.
While researching what was out there I also came across these other digital-to-analog converters as well:
(Microtek ZAT-600HD $299) http://store.microtek.com/Product.aspx?ProductID=2 85/ [microtek.com]
(Michley Tivax $159 New on Ebay) http://www.tivax.com/product1.htm/ [tivax.com]
Cheap D-to-A converters are starting to show up on the market, and I predict that by the time 2008 comes around they will be much more plentiful. Especially since most major cities are already broadcasting local channels in HD. I just didn't feel like waiting around for the $40 coupon. :-)
Re:Yeah, this is chump change... (Score:1, Informative)
(of which about 500 million are living in north america.)
Last time I checked America != USA still returned true.
Re:Yeah, this is chump change... (Score:3, Informative)
Sanitation worker
mop maker
mop bucket maker
soap maker
Pencil maker
nail maker
hammer maker
Sanitation worker
mop maker
mop bucket maker
soap maker
sponge shaper
knife maker
forceps maker
table maker *(arguably the carpenter from construction)
Sanitation worker
mop maker
mop bucket maker
soap maker
paper maker
pencil maker
archivist / Librarian (of course cataloging knowledge is a challenge made simpler by computers so...)
Ad Nausium
-nB
Re:Yeah, this is chump change... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Yeah, this is chump change... (Score:3, Informative)
2. Natural farming requires far more land than our current intensive methods, and is too sensitive to climate factors and plagues. Actually, throughout man's history, farming could barely sustain people and recurring widespread famines were way too common. In fact, even today, you only have to look at some really poor Third World countries, were farmers have no more resources than some primitive tools and animal traction, to have a glimpse of how life was for ALL of us without manufacturing.
Everytime you see lots of people starving in Africa after a long drought, this is no much different from what have been happening for ages to that people, it's just because they rely on natural methods, that they don't have food security.
Maybe you are also a software developer, maybe you dring your expensive ethiopian coffee, and in that case you need to remember, that if people didn't buy "useless" things like HDTVs, iPOds, cars and others you'll probably would not have your job, and your friendly ethiopian coffee farmers would be now living out of subsistence farming, until of course, the next drought, were half of them would be dead by starvation because their crop could not survive without rain, and they could not really have reserves with their primitive, low productivity, not-mechanized farming methods.
I used to regret having majored in economics as I ever worked as a software developer, even after college. But when I read comments like yours, I feel grateful for not being the one spiting such nonsense.
Re:So what? (Score:3, Informative)
The government isn't going to sell the frequencies. They are already claimed by fire, police and other emergency response agencies across the nation as part of the Homeland Security Interoperable Communications Program. The current frequencies emergency personnel use is not capable of penetrating buildings. This was a finding of the 9-11 Commission. Also, the frequencies used by the various agencies caused all kinds of havoc such as one fire department not being able to communicate with another due to frequency range limitations. The idea is to get them all in the same range and as far as possible into a disaster zone. Katrina highlighted this same issue. So if anything, I suspect the date will be moved forward.
B.
Re:So what? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Wrong, keep reading the specification requireme (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Citizens of USA called Americans (Score:3, Informative)
I can't call BS on your other two examples, but I can for Italian. The USA is called "gli stati uniti", but in the four years that I lived there, I never heard an Italian call us anything but "Americani".
please complain... (Score:2, Informative)
It's a net win for taxpayers (Score:3, Informative)
Also a number of studies have shown that the federal government is in fact very efficient at delivering some services. The IRS is very efficient. Medicare operates with far lower administrative cost than any private insurance company. The Postal Service is far more efficient at bulk mail service than private shipping companies. Etc.
[rant]I'm sick to death of the over-hyped meme that the government is always inefficient. It's a marketing campaign by those who seek to supplant government services and profit off the greater inefficiencies. In fact for a private contractor to the government the incentive is to be as inefficient as they can get away with, because it increases their profit margins. Salaried and budgeted government workers do not have that option.[/rant]