Should The Government Subsidize Your Extra TV?
from the the-poor-cable-subscribers dept
One of the sticking points in the plan to free up wireless spectrum currently in use by analog TV broadcasts is the fate of those remaining people that cling to their analog TVs, since those TVs will cease to work once the spectrum switches over. Congress has approved plans to subsidize the cost of digital-to-analog converters, which, while expensive, seems well worth it for the spectrum that it will free up. Ultimately, it only affects a small number of people, so that limits the cost of the subsidy. But now Congress is pressuring the Commerce Department to expand the program to include cable TV subscribers that also happen to have an extra analog TV. This seems a bit silly. It's one thing to argue that people who don't buy cable shouldn't be precluded from getting television, and that people who don't have cable (perhaps for economic reasons) may not be able to afford the cost of buying a converter themselves. But if you already get cable, then you're not losing out on anything, save the right to have a TV on your kitchen counter, or in your basement. And if they really want to keep those TVs, there's nothing stopping them from buying a box themselves. As we've mentioned earlier, a big part of this issue is that politicians are loathe to do anything that might inconvenience their constituents; so even though everyone would benefit from a smooth spectrum transition, no politician wants to be responsible for messing with people's second (and third) TVs.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Puzzled
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes
that's the funniest thing i've read all day
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Extra TV
It costs like $5 a month to get another cable box for it if I really want to use it that badly.
As a cable TV subscriber I can honestly say that I can never see myself using my extra TV unless it was hooked up to cable.
Use the TV as a video game TV or something
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Medical Care, Shelter, Abused People, Drug Addiction, Murder, Rape...
All those issues really pale in comparison to making sure the various media companies and Hollywood get advertising dollars.
What a splendid idea!!
Just makes me curious - who's the bigger idiot - the people proposing this law or the people who will vote to re-elect them.
I don't have cable, I just watch DVD's here and there. TV really has lost it's appeal to me over the years. What, pay 100 bucks a month to be spammed by the advertisements on TV?
You know... LOL, 100 bucks a month buys a fair number of used DVD's...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
For the money spent on the bogus war in Iraq, you could fix all those things AND buy a 47" plasma HDTV for everyone in America.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
For the money spent on the bogus war in Iraq, you could fix all those things AND buy a 47" plasma HDTV for everyone in America.
Actually, I'd have to disagree. Government rarely, if ever fixes anything at all...
The Government makes more drug laws all the time and the problem just gets worse. We can all see how well 'social' medicine worked in Cuba for Mr. Castro...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
$100 a month?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: $100 a month?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: $100 a month?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: $100 a month?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: $100 a month?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think they should
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think they should
I think you're missing the point. They absolutely *are* going to subsidize it for those without cable.
The question is whether they should also subsidize it for the folks who have cable, but who also have an extra tv in the basement that isn't connected to cable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Basic Cable - Channels 2-13
Expanded Cable - Channels 14-~77
Digital Cable - Channels ~78-~299 PPV Channels 400-450 Music Channels 500-580
On-Demand - Channels 100-140
Showtime - Channels 340-356 ($14.95/mo)
HD Channels - 1400-1800 (apx 35 channels total) ($4.95/mo)
Roadrunner (7mb broadband)
1 HD DVR
1 Digital Box
It's a ripoff, I know - but I don't have a choice in cable companies.
On the 'richer' side of the metro there are 2 competing cable companies, each with their own fiber lines. They pay $20-$30 a month less for cable than I do. While they had initially 'promised' to build out the whole metro in order to get their franchises, they mysteriously ran out of money for upgrades after they finished the upscale neghborhoods.
Back to the discussion, my bill includes $15.45/mo for the HD-DVR and $10.45/mo for my digital box. Without my digital box I could not watch anything past channel 77 on my 'older' TV.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NO
- David Letterman
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TV? What is that?
I have no idea where you guys fit time in to watch TV anyway. There is just too much information on the internet to turn on a TV. Each time I watch TV I actually feel cheated of reality, unchallenged and fed a bunch of 'pre-chewed' content.
With National Geographic and Discovery Channel as the exceptions, there really isn't anything worth the cost of a TV in my opinion. But perhaps you guys watch Disabled Housewives and think this content is worth your taxes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cable isn't OTA
That said, it is a bit silly. How many people who subscribe to cable have a second (third, fourth, fifth) TV in their house that's receiving over-the-air signals? It's far more likely that they've got their second, third, or fourth TV hooked up to their cable, but without a cable box - so all they get is the analog channels. But that's analog cable, not analog OTA. And all the Digital TV Transition Act should be dealing with is preserving service for customers who currently receive analog OTA signals as the signals are discontinued with the transition to digital OTA, not helping customers or cable companies reclaim cable spectrum by moving channels to digital.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cable isn't OTA
They are just trying to pass along costs to us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cable isn't OTA
Exactly - thus my point that it's silly of Dingell et. al. to try to load in subsidies for cable subscribers to get digital-analog converter boxes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Money grab via stupid Digital Box
Why on earth do you need a Digital Box for each TV?
Why not just have the Digital Box at the main house in cable conjuntion box and convert all singles at once. That way when I do picture in Picture or side by side picture on my TV I do not need TWO Digital Box.
I am sure the first company that offers a single Digital Box to analog signal to allow me to run 10 TV off one Digital Box will make millions.
I really really really hate the idea of a Digital Box - it seems to be entire waste of a product. The TV already has a built in tuner and other features that far surpass features of the cheapest Digital Box the cable company's use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Money grab via stupid Digital Box
Analog cable is also greatly limited as to the number of channels, so this couldn't replace the digital boxes.
Some digital sets use cable cards to achieve the effect, use the TV and its integrated tuner for digital cable, but the cable companies are starting to screw that up with switched digital video.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Money grab via stupid Digital Box
You want to pull 20 streams (10 TVs, each with PIP) off a box? You need 20 MPEG2 decoders. That's $400-$500. Plus you need to control it at the box, not just tune the TV, because it's the box that picks the channel and stream to decode.
You want to mass-decode every digital channel and put them all on your home cable? No can do - not enough bandwidth on the cable. The whole reason cable companies are going to digital is because they can get more channels into the existing bandwidth. Cable plant can handle up to 860 MHz, and the cable in your house is the same. So you could get 135 channels or so - now you've got to configure the box in some way to pick which of the 500 digital channels it's going to decode.
Oh, and it'll cost around $2500-$3000 to build. Add in margin, and you're looking at a product that will sell for upwards of $3500. How many people will buy that instead of a couple extra digital cable boxes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Plenty To See
Oh, onto the actual point. The subsidies are a good idea. Lots of people have several TVs that are perfectly good with the exception of being analog. Now my cable company doesn't charge extra per set, but they do for extra converters. So all the TVs in the house have cable, but only a couple have the full digital package. The rest stop at channel 73. I know I wouldn't want to shell out to pay for 5 extra converter boxes. However, I was under the impression that if your TV was hooked to cable, you wouldn't need a set top box.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Plenty To See
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I use my second TV
However, I also have a computer next to my computer in the office, a small one in the kitchen that my mom and dad use while eating breakfast, and one more in the living room that is used when my dad plays pool and is watching something interesting on TV.
There is no reason why I SHOULDN'T be compensated for the loss of functionality of these TVs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I use my second TV
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
two cents worth
I saw one once, I turned the Brightness up all the way, but the programing was still stupid. So I turned it off.
...way back when, TV was called Books.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bt"w, I'm not a US citizen nor do I own a TV receiving an OTA signal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
subsidized TV?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
subsidized TV?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Responsibility
Additionally when I purchased my TV's no one told me that the current tuner installed in my set might become obsolete and incompatible within the realistic life-span of the set. There was no tag or notice indicating this. When I purchased my sets I had no reason not to assume that the same broadcast system that had been in place for the last 65 years would continue to be compatible with my set for its life-span.
So under these circumstances, given that the decision makers, decided that this conversion is worth the cost and inconvenience to citizens in the long run, it seems reasonable to me that the switch be made with as little personal cost and inconvenience as possible to individuals. So it seems fair to me that the organization that the decision makers represent (U.S. Government) should be compensating and minimizing the costs and inconvenience that will result from their decisions. It is the responsible thing to do.
If in fact the decision makers are wrong, and the issues with the new system overshadow the shortcomings of the old system then we know who to blame.. If it is so flawed in mass implementation that they are forced to go back to the old system, even if it is only temporary, then I am in the enviable position of not tossing $100's or $1000's of dollars of my money into the trash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Responsibility
What's that? You have cable? Well, the government isn't forcing the cable companies to convert from analog to digital, just OTA broadcasters. As far as the NTIA, the FCC, or Congress is concerned, cable companies can continue to manage their spectrum however they see fit. Cable companies are converting to digital so they can sell more channels, more VOD, more niche programming. Why should I, as a taxpayer, subsidize Comcast's ability to make more money?
If you think that the FCC should require cable companies to give away digital cable boxes prior to moving any analog channels to digital, that's a different issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's the big deal?
I'm sure some opportunist corporation would probably make an external antenna suited to getting the digital signal and converting it to the analog TV's signal. It's not impossible.
When RCA cables were new, neither the Government, nor the TV manufacturers wasted time and effort subsidizing TVs with Coaxial connectors- Instead, companies made converters.
This case is slightly different, since the airwaves are public, but that doesn't mean they have to waste money replacing televisions.
How about worrying about the consequences of meaningful laws on the people they affect instead of worrying how laws affect peoples' television.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who is really making the profit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i still don't get it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait a minute?
Then you are damned right I should get a box for my second TV. Or I will go so far as to say, I will get my own box, the cable company can not charge me for it(if you have your own digital box, some states allow the cable co. to charge you a fee), and I don't have to pay the subsidy.
That would be fair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait a minute?
The government is requiring broadcasters to stop transmitting analog TV signals over the air. You know, the way everyone used to get TV 30 years ago, rabbit ears, antenna on the roof, all that.
Because the government is requiring that broadcast to stop, they appropriated money (from the expected sale at auction of the spectrum licenses that are recovered when the frequencies are reallocated from broadcast TV to other purposes) to subsidize boxes to convert OVER THE AIR digital broadcast to analog. This is a normal practice when the FCC changes the use of a particular area of spectrum.
The NTIA (the Commerce Department agency responsible for implementing the subsidy program) proposed regulations that only households that do not subscribe to cable, satellite, or other similar service would be eligible for the subsidy.
Reps. Dingell, Markey, and others have sent a letter to the NTIA saying that the subsidy should not be limited in that way.
So if you're a cable subscriber, you could get a $40 coupon off the purchase of a box that would convert digital over the air broadcast signals to analog. It's not a digital cable box; it wouldn't allow you to hook up your second TV to your digital cable and get ESPN8 The Ocho or any of those channels above 73. It would allow you to pick up your local broadcast TV signals on your old Sylvania 19" TV with the dial on the front.
Oh, and it would increase the cost of the program to taxpayers by $40.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Absurd
There are a few other issues involved here as well. a digital only TV set can guarantee someone else control over my programming in my own home, at least with new programming and without me doing or commissioning some hardware hacking. And not insignificant is the ergonomic factor. I would love nothing more than to use my PC on a screen as large as my TV set. I can watch my TV from my easy chair, but my PC must be accessed from an uncomfortable little chair, mainly because the PC's monitor has to be small due to cost. My disability makes the access issue a little worse, but I am sure most people's PC desk chairs can't compare to their living room chairs and couches. A digital set that size would be great. But it certainly doesn't fit into my budget. I've invested $$ over the years for analog video equipment, including Beta Hi Fi, 8mm, and yes, even a composite video monitor still in use. For those subsisting on Social Security, the financial burden of equipment replacement is too great. If you think those numbers are small you are incorrect. That's why the Medicare legislation keeps getting changed; it affects too many to be ignored.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
does anyone know?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: does anyone know?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd like to be able to get the secondary channels on PBS. The bribe is to get them to market and insure a market. I might even put one on our old B&W Muntz TV.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cable not everywhere
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Socialists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
UHF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.mydtv45.com/
And these are the most expensive. Many old Directv boxes available on ebay do exactly what you are describing. Free digital tv through an antenna!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: to Winnebago
What about a Directv box with the access card
removed - could it just pick up the local digital
broadcasts as is? Thanks for your comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too many TV's
[ link to this | view in chronology ]