[RagingTireFire]

I can understand them holding back the first time they ran out of vouchers. Thats what they should have done, announced that vouchers ran on a limited supply and once theyre gone theyre gone.

They did.

[Rooster Cogburn]

This is no surprise. America voted for big government and we've got it. The main MO of Big Govt. is that they should be the source for EVERYTHING. 100% Dependence of Government is their goal.

Also, don't forget that besides wanting to be your source for TV, the Obama Government wants every house to have a computer and internet connection. That expendature will be next. Then we are only steps away from. . . . .the end.

[Schfourteenteen]

I can understand them holding back the first time they ran out of vouchers. Thats what they should have done, announced that vouchers ran on a limited supply and once theyre gone theyre gone.

They did.

So they covered their butts in everyway but bent over for the lazy people who come in after the shops closed? So stupid

[RagingTireFire]

I can understand them holding back the first time they ran out of vouchers. Thats what they should have done, announced that vouchers ran on a limited supply and once theyre gone theyre gone.

They did.

So they covered their butts in everyway but bent over for the lazy people who come in after the shops closed? So stupid

Yes.

[RubberMallet]

well, while I agree that there's no right to television, the free market isn't exactly at work here. The government is mandating that every station switch to digital. I'd be fine if they weren't giving these things out for free but it makes sense that they're picking up the cost. On the other hand, is the government paying for the equipment that the station itself has had to invest in? I doubt it.

i don't think you understand though. a local television station uses us for wireless internet access so we know some people. the gvt didn't mandate this because they wanted to. they did so because they had to. tv stations all over the country were already doing it and there needed to be some uniformity. it costs stations anywhere from 150-750k to transition. the only stations this was really to get going were the smaller market stations. everyone else was transitioning.

plus stations have so many more roads to revenue this way. its simple to piggy back a statio onto another. before we had 6 local stations (including ia and il pbs's) now we have 14 different local channels. 3 of the stations have weather channels, 1 has an rtn (old shows from the 80's) the pbs's each have 3 now. if this didn't happen we woudl have another am/fm situation on our hands that would never go away. the problem? analog stations look like absolute crap on a digital tv and analog tv's will eventually go bad and people will eventually be forced to purchase a digital television.

[LUconn]

I guess I don't understand because I still don't see why the government "had to". Just because AM/FM is annoying? Like you said, most stations were already switching (I'm assuming because you can't have analog HD) and the market was dictating that they do that not the government. Smaller stations are exempt from making this switch as we've discussed in another thread. Pretty much everything you just said supports the idea that stations would have changed anyway. Then the burden of the boxes wouldn't be on the government.

[NJLibertyboy]

My grandparents are in their 90s, live in Philly and can afford cable but they don't watch very much TV... and were ready for the transition a year ago.

People really are stupid. How long have they been given warnings about this? If my 90 year old grandparents can figure out how to do this so can the rest of America.

[LUconn]

I think old people are the ones most likely to be ready. They're on top of things. It's the young procrastinators.

[RubberMallet]

I guess I don't understand because I still don't see why the government "had to". Just because AM/FM is annoying? Like you said, most stations were already switching (I'm assuming because you can't have analog HD) and the market was dictating that they do that not the government. Smaller stations are exempt from making this switch as we've discussed in another thread. Pretty much everything you just said supports the idea that stations would have changed anyway. Then the burden of the boxes wouldn't be on the government.

here is the issue. wireless is unfortunately only able to use certain bandwidths....one of them are the ones used by analog broadcast television. wireless has grown to the point where it needs to use those bandwidths...digital is a much smaller and cleaner band that i don't think wireless can use.

Broadcast analog uses their spectrum pretty inefficiently....its a mess basically. Analog signals were beginning to interfere with emergency and military signals....basically we were running out of analog space. majority of television stations were switching to digital so it was the best idea to move television into the digital age....

[mrmacphisto]

If I bought a new gasoline-fueled car today and the government suddenly mandated that gas stations were closing in five years and being replaced with an alternative fuel, and that I would have to either buy a new car within five years or have it converted to run on this new fuel, I would expect some sort of help from the government. I'm not a fan of big government either, but if they're going big, they had better be willing and able to back it up with the necessary funding.

[RubberMallet]

20,000k car vs a 500 dollar tv? 5 years ago, you could get a 32" tube non-hd tv for around 500 bucks. 100 dollars a year for a tv. not too shabby.

[El Scorcho]

Broadcast analog uses their spectrum pretty inefficiently....its a mess basically. Analog signals were beginning to interfere with emergency and military signals....basically we were running out of analog space.

Well there's that...and the fact that the FCC really really really wants to have an auction for the wireless spectrum made available by shutting off the analog signals.

It does free up some spectrum for government use, though. Military, emergency services, etc. And that's okay.

My big problem with this has previously been that the government has had broadcasters preparing for this date for a very long time and then wanted to tell them they had to keep both of their signals on longer. Currently most are still transmitting digital and analog signals, requiring them to pay for the costs of broadcast both. I've seen some pretty big numbers about the cost of running analog transmitters. However, in the version of the bill that finally passed Congres, the government has given broadcasters the option of shutting off before the hard date if they want to. I think most will.

[RubberMallet]

Broadcast analog uses their spectrum pretty inefficiently....its a mess basically. Analog signals were beginning to interfere with emergency and military signals....basically we were running out of analog space.

Well there's that...and the fact that the FCC really really really wants to have an auction for the wireless spectrum made available by shutting off the analog signals.

It does free up some spectrum for government use, though. Military, emergency services, etc. And that's okay.

My big problem with this has previously been that the government has had broadcasters preparing for this date for a very long time and then wanted to tell them they had to keep both of their signals on longer. Currently most are still transmitting digital and analog signals, requiring them to pay for the costs of broadcast both. I've seen some pretty big numbers about the cost of running analog transmitters. However, in the version of the bill that finally passed Congres, the government has given broadcasters the option of shutting off before the hard date if they want to. I think most will.

yeah that is what our guy told us....instead of incurring the costs of upkeeping both they can shut off analog signals after feb 17.