I hate to be the pooper at the party, but why shouldn't I just be responsible for my own TV needs and buy my HDTV solution on my own dime instead of getting some lame government subsidy? It's not like anyone is going to die if they can't tune in and catch their favorite soap-opera. I call on the unwashed masses to choose personal responsibility over government dependence! Ok, it's not as big a deal as that, but you see my point?
Why do so many commenters fail to recognize what this program is about? To speak to Redeye's comments, and preempt some of the other comments I've seen before: This isn't some hand-out. This isn't funded by tax payers. This has nothing to do with welfare.
This is about the government taking an action (shutting off analog broadcasts) that makes things many people own (analog TV's) suddenly much less useful. Meanwhile, the government is *making money* from the shut-off by selling off the freed up airwave spectrum. The $40 coupons are funded by a *small fraction* of the money the government will be taking in.
Perhaps many commenters don't also realize: it was less than 2 years ago that the government mandated that all new TV's must have digital tuners. I've only seen televised warnings about the digital changeover for the last few months. Sure, I've known about the change for several years, but not everybody reads internet tech sites. Many people see TV's as *expensive* items that should last over 10 years. I can remember having regularly-used black-and-white TV's at my house around 1990...and my parents sold them at a garage sale sometime after that -- even those 25-30? year old TV's still had value.
So, maybe you think paying for cable/satellite (cough, $300 to $1000 dollars every year, cough*) or buying a new TV every few years ("analog" sets might only be 2 years old, as I said above) is normal/easy/the thing to do, but not everybody does. Some people prefer to get their TV for free, OTA. Some people would also prefer that perfectly good analog/CRT TV's not just be dumped into the landfill because they suddenly become significantly less useful for many people.
When the government TAKES AWAY FUNCTIONALITY FROM SOMETHING PEOPLE OWN, AND MAKES MONEY IN THE PROCESS, it is natural to compensate the people who are hurt by it.
Finally, this has nothing to do with "personal responsibility." Buying new technology because "the government says so" or "everybody else is doing it" has nothing to do with being responsible. Anybody who suggests people should be expected "be responsible" by throwing away money for a new TV or cable/satellite service haven't really thought out the "financial responsibility" thing very far.
To go a step further, would you call it "personal responsibility" if the government said tomorrow that every car on the road in a year must be electric? Would you feel good about having to foot the bill for some electric-conversion kit or for a new car (whilst not being able to sell your 2-year old but now-useless gas car)? What if, while you were footing that bill, I told you the government was making 10's of billions of dollars by forcing you to switch to electric cars? Sure, electric cars are the way of the future and they're likely better for the environment, etc... but why should that mean you're out $10,000 in the value of your car and the government is raking in money?
It's not like anyone is going to die if they can't tune in and catch their favorite soap-opera.
THEY MAY DIE IF THEY CAN'T CATCH ANY WEATHER ALERT -SAY, A TORNADO WARNING OR WATCH!- WHILE WATCHING THEIR FAVORITE SOAP-OPERA.
I call on the unwashed masses to choose personal responsibility over government dependence!
GOVERMENT DEPENDENCE??? OUR GOVERMENT DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY SOCIAL BENEFITS (SUCH AS FREE HEALTHCARE IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES) AS TO BE ABLE TO SAY WE HAVE GOVERMENT DEPENDENCE. GOT IT?
Ok, it's not as big a deal as that, but you see my point? I WAS TEMPTED TO OFFER A REWARD TO ANYONE WHO FOUND YOUR POINT... BECAUSE I WASN'T ABLE TO DO SO. ;-)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Redeye @ Jan 3rd 2008 10:21PM
I hate to be the pooper at the party, but why shouldn't I just be responsible for my own TV needs and buy my HDTV solution on my own dime instead of getting some lame government subsidy? It's not like anyone is going to die if they can't tune in and catch their favorite soap-opera. I call on the unwashed masses to choose personal responsibility over government dependence! Ok, it's not as big a deal as that, but you see my point?
EQC @ Jan 3rd 2008 11:08PM
Why do so many commenters fail to recognize what this program is about? To speak to Redeye's comments, and preempt some of the other comments I've seen before: This isn't some hand-out. This isn't funded by tax payers. This has nothing to do with welfare.
This is about the government taking an action (shutting off analog broadcasts) that makes things many people own (analog TV's) suddenly much less useful. Meanwhile, the government is *making money* from the shut-off by selling off the freed up airwave spectrum. The $40 coupons are funded by a *small fraction* of the money the government will be taking in.
Perhaps many commenters don't also realize: it was less than 2 years ago that the government mandated that all new TV's must have digital tuners. I've only seen televised warnings about the digital changeover for the last few months. Sure, I've known about the change for several years, but not everybody reads internet tech sites. Many people see TV's as *expensive* items that should last over 10 years. I can remember having regularly-used black-and-white TV's at my house around 1990...and my parents sold them at a garage sale sometime after that -- even those 25-30? year old TV's still had value.
So, maybe you think paying for cable/satellite (cough, $300 to $1000 dollars every year, cough*) or buying a new TV every few years ("analog" sets might only be 2 years old, as I said above) is normal/easy/the thing to do, but not everybody does. Some people prefer to get their TV for free, OTA. Some people would also prefer that perfectly good analog/CRT TV's not just be dumped into the landfill because they suddenly become significantly less useful for many people.
When the government TAKES AWAY FUNCTIONALITY FROM SOMETHING PEOPLE OWN, AND MAKES MONEY IN THE PROCESS, it is natural to compensate the people who are hurt by it.
Finally, this has nothing to do with "personal responsibility." Buying new technology because "the government says so" or "everybody else is doing it" has nothing to do with being responsible. Anybody who suggests people should be expected "be responsible" by throwing away money for a new TV or cable/satellite service haven't really thought out the "financial responsibility" thing very far.
To go a step further, would you call it "personal responsibility" if the government said tomorrow that every car on the road in a year must be electric? Would you feel good about having to foot the bill for some electric-conversion kit or for a new car (whilst not being able to sell your 2-year old but now-useless gas car)? What if, while you were footing that bill, I told you the government was making 10's of billions of dollars by forcing you to switch to electric cars? Sure, electric cars are the way of the future and they're likely better for the environment, etc... but why should that mean you're out $10,000 in the value of your car and the government is raking in money?
lalo @ Jan 24th 2008 12:17PM
It's not like anyone is going to die if they can't tune in and catch their favorite soap-opera.
THEY MAY DIE IF THEY CAN'T CATCH ANY WEATHER ALERT -SAY, A TORNADO WARNING OR WATCH!- WHILE WATCHING THEIR FAVORITE SOAP-OPERA.
I call on the unwashed masses to choose personal responsibility over government dependence!
GOVERMENT DEPENDENCE??? OUR GOVERMENT DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY SOCIAL BENEFITS (SUCH AS FREE HEALTHCARE IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES) AS TO BE ABLE TO SAY WE HAVE GOVERMENT DEPENDENCE. GOT IT?
Ok, it's not as big a deal as that, but you see my point? I WAS TEMPTED TO OFFER A REWARD TO ANYONE WHO FOUND YOUR POINT... BECAUSE I WASN'T ABLE TO DO SO. ;-)