No more TVs in 2006?

[The Missing Link]

AI, you and I should be both very well aware that this is NOT a racial issue. I have significant doubts finding that whichever the people in Washington that have had their hands on this bill are even CONSIDERING race in this issue. If anything, you could call this a class issue, but even then, when you consider the point where it might be a class issue, you're really stretching the argument when you consider the facts. First off, the cost of digital tuners is, as the article mentioned, going down:

To continue to receive free broadcast television via antenna, you’ll have to buy a digital converter box; cost estimates range from $100 or so in 2006 down to $50 by 2008.

Furthermore, this could very well become a federally subsidised program.

Most discussions in Washington contemplate some sort of free or subsidized converters for low-income households, paid for by the government, perhaps with the help of broadcasters or consumer electronics manufacturers. Estimates for the costs of that subsidy range from under one to several billion dollars — the cost declining as the cut-off date is moved further into the future. Proponents argue that the cost of the subsidy is small compared to the economic benefits...

If that is the case, not only will the poor people be able to get converters for increasingly more inexpensive prices, it is very conceivable that they could get these converters for mere dimes to pennies to the dollar of the standard commercial price. If the prediction is indeed correct, we'll assume that the date gets pushed back to 1 January 2009; D-to-A converters would be $50. If the government subsidises even half of that (and this is hardly a generous assumption considering that they might be free), they'll go down to $25. If you can afford a $25 TV set in your house (though most at Best Buy, even at a mere 5" set, are more than that), somehow I have this significant doubt that $25 (or less) becomes this horrendous financial issue, especially when this concerns an issue that is not guaranteed by any sort of law. Beyond that, then you have to consider the friendly local RTO outlet will be kind enough to allow you to rent to own one for $1 a month for 3 years, making the initial up-front cost even less.

When it boils down to it in the end, not only does this become a cheap jump (especially considering that that 5" TV is eventually going to go out someday and need a $25+ replacement), but it would easily compete with the price of a newspaper (considering the cost per lifetime is horrendously less).

Now I will give you credit that the television industry (I guess that would be electronics industry) has done a poor job of marketing this in their stores, and yes, the fact that it is still analog TV sets that are most prominently produced and purchased is a threat to the effectiveness of the switch. See that's what you should be saying; that's the Holy Grail of an argument to this, that the electronics industry is screwing us all over. That would make a good argument for why the delay should be postponed. Instead, you're arguing your positions from all the wrong reasons, trying to make this into some nonexistent class/racial warfare debate. Sorry, I don't buy it.

I will gladly admit, I am rather blunt and perhaps extreme in my statements sometimes, especially so when I see people crying loudly over spilled milk. It does give me this uncanny urge to dare argue against such an ordinarily otherwise pitiable person. So you know, perhaps your first statement is correct. I may just be a ****, but if that's the case, that's probably your strongest point.


"There are some who call me... Link?"
"Carpe Gaium Domesticum!" (Seize the Cucco!)
Zelda: The Grand Adventures | Triforce MUCK
ザ行方不明リンク
悪いユウモアの賢人

[ April 29, 2005, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: The Missing Link ]

[CaptHayfever]

I only cry when someone else spills my milk. That's what they have to deal with for touching my milk. Tears of angst.

I was serious about the school assignments, by the way. That's happened to me a couple times.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

[Jonathan Good]

Originally posted by The Missing Link:
AI, you and I should be both very well aware that this is NOT a racial issue. I have significant doubts finding that whichever the people in Washington that have had their hands on this bill are even CONSIDERING race in this issue. If anything, you could call this a class issue, but even then, when you consider the point where it might be a class issue, you're really stretching the argument when you consider the facts. First off, the cost of digital tuners is, as the article mentioned, going down:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />To continue to receive free broadcast television via antenna, you’ll have to buy a digital converter box; cost estimates range from $100 or so in 2006 down to $50 by 2008.

Furthermore, this could very well become a federally subsidised program.

Most discussions in Washington contemplate some sort of free or subsidized converters for low-income households, paid for by the government, perhaps with the help of broadcasters or consumer electronics manufacturers. Estimates for the costs of that subsidy range from under one to several billion dollars — the cost declining as the cut-off date is moved further into the future. Proponents argue that the cost of the subsidy is small compared to the economic benefits...

If that is the case, not only will the poor people be able to get converters for increasingly more inexpensive prices, it is very conceivable that they could get these converters for mere dimes to pennies to the dollar of the standard commercial price. If the prediction is indeed correct, we'll assume that the date gets pushed back to 1 January 2009; D-to-A converters would be $50. If the government subsidises even half of that (and this is hardly a generous assumption considering that they might be free), they'll go down to $25. If you can afford a $25 TV set in your house (though most at Best Buy, even at a mere 5" set, are more than that), somehow I have this significant doubt that $25 (or less) becomes this horrendous financial issue, especially when this concerns an issue that is not guaranteed by any sort of law. Beyond that, then you have to consider the friendly local RTO outlet will be kind enough to allow you to rent to own one for $1 a month for 3 years, making the initial up-front cost even less.

When it boils down to it in the end, not only does this become a cheap jump (especially considering that that 5" TV is eventually going to go out someday and need a $25+ replacement), but it would easily compete with the price of a newspaper (considering the cost per lifetime is horrendously less).

Now I will give you credit that the television industry (I guess that would be electronics industry) has done a poor job of marketing this in their stores, and yes, the fact that it is still analog TV sets that are most prominently produced and purchased is a threat to the effectiveness of the switch. See that's what you should be saying; that's the Holy Grail of an argument to this, that the electronics industry is screwing us all over. That would make a good argument for why the delay should be postponed. Instead, you're arguing your positions from all the wrong reasons, trying to make this into some nonexistent class/racial warfare debate. Sorry, I don't buy it.

I will gladly admit, I am rather blunt and perhaps extreme in my statements sometimes, especially so when I see people crying loudly over spilled milk. It does give me this uncanny urge to dare argue against such an ordinarily otherwise pitiable person. So you know, perhaps your first statement is correct. I may just be a ****, but if that's the case, that's probably your strongest point.


"There are some who call me... Link?"
"Carpe Gaium Domesticum!" (Seize the Cucco!)
Zelda: The Grand Adventures | Triforce MUCK
ザ行方不明リンク
悪いユウモアの賢人 </font>[/quote]The government is believing in lies, we don't to rebuild TV sets so that we can listen to inherent alien messages telling us to be like animals and make us all into transsexuals.

-------------------------------------------
I have no idea what I'm doing, but it sure is making you worship Atlantis and bulls!

USA! USA! HIYYYYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHH!!!!

[DJ Ryan]

I still don't see the ABSOLUTE NEED to even worry about this yet.

[El Barto]

Many really avid gamers tend to use their TV's only for their consoles. I'm guessing TML is one of these...?

[The Missing Link]

I wouldn't exactly say it's because I'm an "avid gamer" (although I do almost exclusively use my TV for gaming). I do say it because none of the shows on TV are able to keep my interest for any weeks on end. Simply put, I've found virtually nothing useful on TV, so I seek enrichment of my life elsewhere.


"There are some who call me... Link?"
"Carpe Gaium Domesticum!" (Seize the Cucco!)
Zelda: The Grand Adventures | Triforce MUCK
ザ行方不明リンク
悪いユウモアの賢人

[DELICIOUS POISON]

I think it's entirely unfair for the government to step in and force consumers to shell out more money. The broadcasting stations don't even want to make the switch. Doesn't that matter? It's on principle. The government is just trying to force the stations off certain broadcast ranges for its own interest. And while you might argue that it's not a class case, I'm saying that some people are getting the cold shoulder. 50 dollars might not be much to you. It's something to a lot of people, though. Maybe you don't give a ****. Then again, maybe you shouldn't be saying anything about it, if you don't. No hard feelings, but someone who doesn't care just doesn't really fit into the scenario of persons affected.

"Your original name was Rick.
But you were strong as a bull at 7 or 8 so I called you Ricky."

[The Missing Link]

There's a great irony in the phrase "No hard feelings, but..."


"There are some who call me... Link?"
"Carpe Gaium Domesticum!" (Seize the Cucco!)
Zelda: The Grand Adventures | Triforce MUCK
ザ行方不明リンク
悪いユウモアの賢人

[CaptHayfever]

Mildly related tangent: Have you seen "Numb3rs" yet, TML?

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

[DELICIOUS POISON]

Suppose there is. There's not exactly an easy way to say you don't think someone's opinion has a place. It's not a personal thing, although you're bright enough to know that.

For the record, I don't watch television. I do, however, own 5 sets. I did not purchase any of them, except one from a thrift store. While you'd think it doesn't affect me, I do know people that are affected.

"Your original name was Rick.
But you were strong as a bull at 7 or 8 so I called you Ricky."

[The Missing Link]

Originally posted by CaptHayfever:
Mildly related tangent: Have you seen "Numb3rs" yet, TML?

Yes I have. I've seen episodes 1 and 5 and have intentions of watching them all. (My favourite mum in the whole wide world has taped them. Love.) My problem is that I tend not to watch TV in general except for special occasions, usually because I'm doing something else. So no, I haven't watched the show religiously.

AI, I understand your point, but your argument inevitably boils down to a matter of pricing concerns. If that problem is resolved, you're entire argument unravels like a cheap sweater. As I said before, the fact of the matter is that it might boil down to that the digital converters will be offered free of charge to said 15 million American homes through a federal subsidy, and then poof, your argument of cost is thrown out the window and you're left with no argument to stand on. Unless of course you don't think the federal government should do that, but then you're arguing a different topic altogether.

Granted, my argument does boil down to the inevitable "if" the subsudies are 100%. Your argument is, however, susceptible to the same conditional "flaw" that mine is, and so the arguments cancel one another out, making that specific point undebatable and unusable in an argument.


"There are some who call me... Link?"
"Carpe Gaium Domesticum!" (Seize the Cucco!)
Zelda: The Grand Adventures | Triforce MUCK
ザ行方不明リンク
悪いユウモアの賢人

[DELICIOUS POISON]

That's just it, though. Even if the governent goes ahead and covers the cost, they're still technically making the citizens of america pay for an unnecessary shift. Maybe it's not directly out of our pockets, but maybe if the U.S. government can afford to pay for tens of millions of unnecessary convertors, we're really giving them more than they need as is. Aside from the fact that the government has no business promising rights to something they don't have to anyone.

[Nick]

Forcing innovation has a purpose, especially in a tech market that isn't driven by new technologies being introduced. That's why you can't say "OH LOOK THE GOVERNMENT ISN"T FORCING PEOPLE TO UPGRADE COMPUTERS!" That's because in other electronic industries, people are eventually updating due to competition and various other marketplace things. TVs last for years, and people aren't going to upgrade a TV every other year. This was originally intended to be a gradual upgrade, starting from the 1980s but the industries involved (meaning TV manufacturers and to a much lesser extent broadcasters) have been dragging their knuckles and asses for far too long. Think about it, we weren't getting widespread HDTV broadcasts or sets until last year. Sets are priced way out of the range so that 85% of the market is essentially priced out or uninterested. Am I, as a consumer, more likely to spend $500 bucks on a 32" TV or $5000 on an HD. While I would LOVE an HDTV, it isn't an option due to cost. In all honesty, the industry should have been placing converters into TV sets at least 5 years ago so they'd eventually be rolled into widespread use. This isn't talking about HD proper, but rather the HD air reception that the adapters are going to be needed for.

I think the hard date should be pushed into 2007, especially considering that HDTV prices are expected to start dropping in late 2005 and throughout 2006. No longer than that though. This switch needs to happen, and without a hard date it will not happen.

And if you really want, you can rely on radio stations in the cities for better news than over the air TV. NPR especially.

[DELICIOUS POISON]

Obviously the industry is at large. I just don't think it's any excuse to let the people in office go ahead and force change in their own interest.

[Nick]

If the industry isn't pushing innovations which only HELP consumers in the long run (no snowout pictures, clear reception, etc), the government SHOULD step in.

[DELICIOUS POISON]

It's of no benefit at all if you can't use it. If they really want to impress me, force the television companies to pay for the changeover. They haven't yet produced the digital set that interests me.

"Your original name was Rick.
But you were strong as a bull at 7 or 8 so I called you Ricky."

[Nick]

It isn't referring to HDTV in the sense of "THE SPORTS GAME LOOKS BETTER THAN IT DOES IN REAL LIFE" HDTV, but HD broadcast signals in the sense of them not getting snowed out.

[Nick]

It isn't referring to HDTV in the sense of "THE SPORTS GAME LOOKS BETTER THAN IT DOES IN REAL LIFE" HDTV, but HD broadcast signals in the sense of them not getting snowed out.

[DELICIOUS POISON]

Yeah, I'm aware. The quality level in the digital signal does not warrant the price jump, in my opinion.

[Nick]

Yeah, it does, and they haven't applied it to low end sets yet.