DTV Coupon Program Out of Money 591
Thelasko writes "It appears that the US Government's digital converter box program is running out of money. If you sign up after the program runs out of money, you will receive your voucher if the program receives more funding. Older analog televisions will no longer work without a converter box after February 17."
At least (Score:1, Interesting)
Hidden Cost & Annoyances (Score:5, Interesting)
The converter boxes aren't that expensive, about as much as a new game, sure it sucks to be forced to buy new equipment but there are other things one can do besides watch TV if they are so unwilling to suffer the cost of the boxes.
This is true, my grandmother bought one for $30. Not too expensive. However, when I came home for Christmas, she asked me to hook the box up. She needed the TV to record soap operas on her VCR while she was at work. That is all she used it for (we're talking technologically inept middle of nowhere country folk here). Ok, so I run the coaxial cable into the back of the converter, then put the RCA cables into the input on the back of the VCR (which then turned into a coaxial cable to the back of her TV as her TV is 20 years old and that's all it has). Everything is working fine but as a side result, she can't program different channels because the converter box determines the channels. Ok, not a big deal to her.
... I tried a few other VCRs at my parent's house and they all seem to do it.
But then we record something and I notice a very peculiar thing with the color. I seem to recall that if you had put a DVD signal through a VCR, the color would modulate so that people couldn't dupe videos (or maybe there is a technical restriction). Anyway, she said she would put up with it but after watching 10 minutes of TV I wanted to throw the damned thing through the window.
So tell me, how do you record on these things to a VCR with no color modulation
Re:Why is the government even subsidizing this? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why is the government even subsidizing this? (Score:4, Interesting)
New TVs are not that expensive. Even pensioners could buy a new one. I don't think the government should be paying for any of this.
The Government, along with the major media conglomerates, would very much like to continue their effective propaganda campaign against US citizens. An easy way to do this is to is to continue providing lazy Americans with free TV in their house, ensuring that the message delivery system that is piped directly into homes stays intact.
It's quite brilliant, really. I am not a tinfoil hatter (don't even get me started on those "contrails kill!!" idiots) but I believe this.
Re:Why is the government even subsidizing this? (Score:5, Interesting)
It probably has something to do with the massive amount of lead and various other environmentally hazardous material found in televisions: the gov't doesn't want it all in landfills. Especially, for that matter, right away: when TVs all stop working at once, everyone is going to dispose of their old ones immediately (not leave them laying around). Such a thing could overwhelm sanitation services (due to the weight of the things) temporarily.
Also, there are a LOT of people out there who don't like throwing things out. So there are still quite a few 30+ year old TVs out there with the analog 19 channel dials.
Re:I've got a better idea about television. (Score:3, Interesting)
I doubt very much that STNG's alternate universe is that accurate. Yes, if you have a holodeck, your holodeck is an interactive 3D TV. And note that Kirk's Enterprise had no holodeck.
Note also that Picard's crew staged plays. You don't think that the plays would be recorded, and that even more elaborate plays with special effects, professional actors, etc would be recorded (a TV show)?
Data's data were faulty.
Another thing - McCoy coudn't fix Kirk's age related presbyopia (farsightedness), but my surgeoun, Dr. Yeh, cured mine with a focusable implant (accomodating IOL). Star trek was entertaining fiction, but it was hardly prescient.
Re:Hidden Cost & Annoyances (Score:2, Interesting)
She should have purchased a DTVPal (mfd by Dish Network), which has the ability to control a VCR for recording shows on different channels.
Re:Maybe not expensive to you (Score:2, Interesting)
It will be felt, but they'll forget about it after they sit in front of their brand new TV.
I mentor a 11 year old girl who's the second youngest of five children (brother, sister, half sister, step sister), these kids are fed McDonalds or delivered pizza every night. Her mom/step-mom/not-any-of-the-above-because-they're-not-married sits at home and plays MMOs all day. Her dad works 12 hours a day at an auto-shop. They recently (over the summer) had their electricity turned off because they hadn't paid the bills...
but, they bought a 42 inch plamsa TV which is connected to their high definition DVR from the cable company. The last thing the lower class will give up is their TV and cable, I've seen this first hand.
Re:Why is the government even subsidizing this? (Score:3, Interesting)
Walmart? No, thanks. I'd rather eat red-hot nails than shop at an establishment that's destroying America.
Re:Maybe not expensive to you (Score:3, Interesting)
No, but quite a few do. Drive by a trailer park and look for satellite dishes. The number with them will most likely surprise you.
Re:Why is the government even subsidizing this? (Score:3, Interesting)
You forgot one important justification for the DTV changeover: ending a massively wasteful use of spectrum.
I'm all for efficient use of spectrum. Now you tell me what better use that spectrum is going for. As far as I can tell, if you're not a Verizon customer, you get jack.
Just four channels--24hz--is enough bandwidth to run a full-fledged mobile 3G network. You tell me what's a smarter way to use that chunk of spectrum.
By all means, run a 3G network on it. Just don't sell the public spectrum to Verizon, keep the money, and then force the public to pay Verizon for the use of the spectrum you just sold to them.
Besides, relatively few people even get television from an antenna anymore
Very few people named pin0chet read slashdot, so I guess it's ok if we kill them all.
See, the fact that you're *only* fucking over a few people doesn't make it ok. It doesn't make a damn bit of difference if you are one of those people.
I don't get why people just assume that it's in the public's interest for broadcasters to control massive quantities of spectrum when pretty much every engineer and economist has demonstrated that broadcasting analog television signals is a complete waste of spectrum.
Efficient use of spectrum is good. I don't see why increasing the efficiency of spectrum use should cost me anything. As a member of the public that is MY spectrum they are selling. If they sell MY spectrum, I should see some profit. As it is, I'm out $40 for two converter boxes, and I have fewer channels on digital than I do analog. This is what we call a scam.
Letting politically powerful lobbies like the National Association of Broadcasters dictate how the public airwaves are used is unacceptable
Because selling it all to corporations who have no reason to promote the public interest is better?
The convertor box manufacturers are ripping us off (Score:1, Interesting)
Recently I went back to Frys to purchase another for my sister. Well, they didn't have the $40 box in stock, only a $60 box. I asked a Frys employee if they had any $40 boxes and he said no, the manuf. had discontinued that version.
So then I asked, what feature did this box have that I had to pay $20 extra bucks for? Well, it passes the analog signal through, so that if I want to watch analog TV, I can just turn off the converter and flip the channels via the TV instead. Of course, this $20 feature is almost useless right now, since I could just plug the antenna back into the TV instead and every analog channel shows up with noise anyways, and it will be completely useless after February 17th when all analog television broadcasts are shut down.
Yay capitalism.
Re:yaay (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll call shenanigans on that comment. There are a lot of younger folks that are neither "poor" nor "elderly" that just aren't seeing the benefit anymore to having 500+ television stations filled mostly with reruns of television shows that were popular 30 years ago, B movies, and enough advertisements to make your head spin. We've realized that a good amount of TV content is now available online, with less ads, and on-demand. The DTV converters allow us to get a couple of the local stations for some of the live events that are aired there (mainly, local sports), and then get the rest of it online,... The "poor" can't afford the internet, and the "elderly" don't know how to watch TV online and don't care to, either.
Re:Why is the government even subsidizing this? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Just wondering.. (Score:3, Interesting)
I"m sorry..just have to agree to disagree. As far as the tax man/govt. goes...I see them as wanting to take as much as possible from me, and I try to keep as much as I can from them. They offer me a rebate back in whatever form be it services or a check in cash...I'll take it. Either way, I consider it MY money.
I only wish it were used like you said it should be used for..primarily for infrastructure and the like. But as long as they are wasteful and throwing money around, I see no problem standing there with all the others trying to grab some of it as it falls.