These 6 million people aren't watching tv all the time in their homes either. There are actually quite a few homes out there who don't have tvs. Since you believe they have the right to have the EBS if they don't bother to buy a tv why don't you give them yours to give them their right?
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Senate Passes Digital Delay Again
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
These 6 million people aren't watching tv all the time in their homes either. There are actually quite a few homes out there who don't have tvs. Since you believe they have the right to have the EBS if they don't bother to buy a tv why don't you give them yours to give them their right?
Well, send a letter to FEMA, Homeland Security, the DoD and the White House and I'm sure they'll respectfully disagree with you're opinion. People don't look at the big picture.
You didn't read what I wrote I guess. Lemme quote a something you quoted me on:
I also stated that everyone has the RIGHT, not that everyone will. If they choose not to exorcise that RIGHT, than that's their problem. Reading comprehension is a good thing.
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 31,350
I think I am looking at the big picture. Less government = better...you know the 10th amendment
.
GilmourD
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2004
- Messages
- 11,185
Everybody does have that right. I forget which act of Congress it was, but there is the right to free TV.
However, the technology has changed, so the free OTA is digital, now, instead of analog. Get a TV that natively handles digital or get a converter box and you're good to go.
GilmourD
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2004
- Messages
- 11,185
Inacurate
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2004
- Messages
- 520
Along that line of thinking then, the people without the proper converter boxes also have the right to purchase a new one, and if they choose not to, they exercise that right. It should not have been given out for free.
If I can't get a free TV to get OTA signals, then the government shouldn't be shelling out money for converter boxes either. Fairly simple concept, but to many whiners in this country need to complain about all the wrong things so we spend time, effort and money on the most ridiculous ideas to help people who are simply to LAZY and UNWILLING to help themselves.
Can't have it both ways....oh wait, here in America we try to do that all the time and royally screw ourselves with no reach around!
Natural Selection Law please!!
bigstusexy
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2002
- Messages
- 3,194
I can't express how your quick and snappy reply angers me and the fact that you completely misunderstood it. So I'll attempt to rewrite my question just for you.
Quick recap;
Obama: (Democrat) Lets delay the Digital transition I don't think we or the public is quite ready yet.
Senate: (Democratic Majority) Okay!
House: (Republic Majority) No!
Me: Do you think that the people voting this down have a good technical reason or are they just trying to screw over the president?
I personally can think of no real bad reasons why a wait would be so costly and horrible having known and consulted a few friends that do only get OTA service and the fact that they are not ready and that there are even more that I know that have no clue what to do. Especially since there is an annoying but watch able threshold lower than the threshold to receive a digital signal.
I may have miscomprehended what you said, but I could have sworn you said they were giving these boxes away for free.
Strange, as the only reason I hadn't (and still haven't) converted was due to the fact that the boxes were/are NOT free...
I've heard of those so-called coupons... But could never find anywhere where the box was equal to or less than the coupon... So, it was to be money out of my wallet...
NOT free...
As I have said before, I don't care, as just about everything is available on the 'net now...
But typically the commercials are edited out...
Great, unless it's a program you cannot stand, wish was off of the air, and want to know for yourself what products you need to boycott that promote it...
Still funny that the switch is right after the SB... Ads for it are easy to figure anyway... Beer (don't drink, boycotted anyway...), ED pills (beer's a downer, not hard to figure out why someone's having ED problems...), and American-made junk automobiles (I've owned one, and I'm done...)
But don't want anyone to miss a potential wardrobe malfunction...
But, anyway, back on topic: the boxes are not free... (I've seen gun owners moan about concerns about registering their guns, but then I see the info they want from me for a "coupon"? I felt like I was "registering" for tv... No thanks, especially if it's still not free in the end...)
If they want to make it free, allow it to be a write-off in your taxes or something, with no questions asked, except for proof that you bought one...
(regardless of whether or not you have cable, too... Someone said it's so you have EBS coverage... Know how many times cable's gone out, when OTA signal's still fine? Why does having cable DQ you from a damn coupon? Free my a$$....)
I hate tv, but I hate $10+ "freebies"even more...
And, before we get confused here, OTA signal is NOT free... Don't believe me? Tell EVERYONE you know to absolutely NOT buy ANYTHING they see advertised on OTA tv... Once those advertising dollars dry up, how are they going to broadcast?
OTA is NOT free... But now you want me to REGISTER to receive a $40 coupon for a $50+ box that has _MAYBE_ $10 worth of electronics in it? I'm still paying more than the cost of the box...
Actually, sometimes I actually buy a pizza I see advertised on tv. So give me my "free" converter for free, already!
(FWIW - if it had never been mentioned that these boxes were going to be "free", I doubt I'd be complaining at all... But they're not free, and the reason for DQing some people from the so-called coupons is baloney... Or at least let me buy $10 worth of electronics for $10, instead of letting Best Buy or Walmart profit from something the "gubment" forced... The mark-ups I saw in stores irritated me...)
While that is true, you have the right to over the air TV, but that does not mean you will be provided with the necessary equipment to access that over the air signal, if it did guarantee the equipment then the government would be obligated to provide television sets to everyone that does not have one. While I have the same right to bear arms, the government is not obligated to provide me with a firearm. we are guaranteed life, liberty and the pursuit of wealth, while we have the right to over the air programming it is our responsibility to procure the necessary equipment to receive said programming. Having the right just means that the government cannot stop us from using it. By not giving out converter boxes the government is not keeping us from over the air programing, they are just not facilitating it. this whole mess with the coverter boxes is a symptom of this countries sad sence of entitlement.
I get all that and agree with everything you wrote and didn't say anything to the contrary. I think they should be switching over on the date Congress agreed to years ago regardless if anyone's taken the opportunity the gubment gave them to switch over. If they haven't, that's their problem and their fault.
I wasn't debating converting over in the first place...I was just responding to w1retap's assertion that OTA TV isn't a right, when in fact it is.
If the government is going to mandate that NTSC broadcasts are stopped, in effect breaking people's TVs, then they also have an obligation to ensure that people can receive ATSC; if for no other reason than the EBS.
I don't think the government should mandate stopping NTSC broadcasts in the first place. Outside of a small minority of raging internet nerds, is this something that the public actually wants?
You're kidding, right? It's Democrat all the way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...ves#Latest_election_results_and_party_summary
Neither. They like the idea of actually sticking to deadlines instead of extending them for a small amount of people.
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 31,350
1). The house is also a democrat majority (once again...thanks for playing).
2). Just because you can't think of any bad reasons why a wait would be costly doesn't mean there aren't any.
3). People have had plenty of time to get ready. If they don't have a clue, they should go find out about it. It's not like you have to do anything more advanced than walk into a Walmart and ask the people in the electronics section. They may be ignorant, but they can at least point you to what hardware you need. Whether that be a just a converter box or a converter box and a new antenna. If there is no Walmart available, even a local library could answer questions. The real problem isn't access to information to change. The real problem is laziness.
4). This is clearly a political issue for you. You're upset at Republicans because they voted against something Obama wanted. Unfortunately, that's the beauty of the representative form of government we have. Disagreement doesn't mean we can't all be friends
.
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2006
- Messages
- 14,581
No, actually they still don't have the obligation to. Television is not a right.
knight3058
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2005
- Messages
- 148
AFAIK a bill has to pass the House, before it gets voted on in the Senate? Or did I misread my Constitution? Oh wait, we have precedent for that, the TARP....or Trap. So much for defending the Constitution. More like defacing it.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2007
- Messages
- 14,662
Wow... June? I guess they want to wait until hurricane season so that when the hurricanes come through and the power is out everywhere they can switch off NTSC and have everyone not only confused, but without notices about how to deal with the disaster, huh?
I can see the headlines now: "Disaster Strikes: Hurricane Barrels through Mid-South; Citizens Confused with Recent DTV Conversion!"
And that's if we aren't all bankrupt by that time with all the government spending on "relief efforts". I would think that when a business goes out of business, that it is because of something they weren't doing right, not something that the government should be remedying. If they do go out of business, than another will replace them if there is a demand; that's how the free market works, right?
In that same way, I guess the government really has no right to say when we convert to digital either; if the companies feel they will make money with the conversion, they'll advertise how great DTV is and get consumers to buy it so they can convert and make money. On the other hand, if the government feels that it will better be able to protect us by having us switch over to digital, then they have every right to make us switch(I believe there's some law about this).
Anyway, that's my take on the situation.
I can see the headlines now: "Disaster Strikes: Hurricane Barrels through Mid-South; Citizens Confused with Recent DTV Conversion!"
And that's if we aren't all bankrupt by that time with all the government spending on "relief efforts". I would think that when a business goes out of business, that it is because of something they weren't doing right, not something that the government should be remedying. If they do go out of business, than another will replace them if there is a demand; that's how the free market works, right?
In that same way, I guess the government really has no right to say when we convert to digital either; if the companies feel they will make money with the conversion, they'll advertise how great DTV is and get consumers to buy it so they can convert and make money. On the other hand, if the government feels that it will better be able to protect us by having us switch over to digital, then they have every right to make us switch(I believe there's some law about this).
Anyway, that's my take on the situation.
TechieSooner
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2007
- Messages
- 7,601
Anybody found this odd?
That's where your argument fails.
I'm no fan of big government, which is why I've always leaned away from the Democratic side of things. Let me live my own damn life and make my own decisions.
I've always thought the House had to approve something before the Senate, not the other way around.
I could say the same thing about people using old analog TVs with over the air signals.
That's where your argument fails.
Exactly. Might just be me but the US seems to prosper when government is smaller.I think I am looking at the big picture. Less government = better...you know the 10th amendment
I'm no fan of big government, which is why I've always leaned away from the Democratic side of things. Let me live my own damn life and make my own decisions.
This is why I've lost all confidence in our educational system.
You should take a Constitutional law class before you start assuming Americans have fundamental rights that the Supreme Court has never found them to have. I can assure you that you are wrong about what fundamental rights are of Americans. Prove to me that you are a lawyer who specializes in Constitutional law and I'll take back my statement. Considering it's very likely you aren't a lawyer and I have taken a con law class in law school I'll assume I have more knowledge about what the Supreme Court has found as fundamental rights than you have.
I suppose that depends on how you define obligation. I won't suggest that there is some sort of constitutional or legal obligation; but there is certainly a moral one in that they are breaking millions of televisions and causing a cumulatively massive inconvenience to society.
Okay. Prove it then, since you're already asking him to.
Maybe I'll apply to law school after all. It doesn't sound like the admissions criteria are all that bad if you didn't notice that glaring flaw in your argument.
That, yes. Also, things like C-SPAN are part of the transparency requirements the government has to follow, so breaking access to it without making an attempt to provide a workaround could be a potential avenue to protest the initial transition. Possibly to protest it through the judiciary, but I wouldn't know and I'm not about to go trying to bully people into listening to my assertion by claiming I took one law class.
jubalskeiki
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2005
- Messages
- 454
It is a one time fee. There are benefits to consumers. It isn't compulsory. It's not like the goverment is charging 50 dollars a month for what used to be free. Someone else drew a comparison to radio when FM radio came out and people had to get new radios to tune into it. It's very similar, because they aren't paying 50 dollars for the exact same thing. I don't know what it is like where you live, maybe it is the same, but here it also adds HD broadcasting as well as additional channels not otherwise available.
I think the key part of what you said is that it is TV and radio. Radio is unaffected by this. You don't have to pay anything to get your radio working. So it really doesn't affect EBS effectiveness at all.
jubalskeiki
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2005
- Messages
- 454
Who's watching TV all the time in their homes? I don't know how it works in your house but for me, I don't have the TV on all day. I'd turn it on when I heard the sirens...and in that case it is just as easy to turn on my radio.
the_dealer
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 119
I personally watch less than 4 hours of television a week. I listen to at least 50 hours of the radio,
Either the House or the Senate can initiate bills, however it is the sole realm of the House to initiate budgetting matters. Both need to ratify a compromise bill should identical bills not pass both before they are sent to the Pres. to sign. The schoolhouse rock video didn't clarify this one really well.
Either the House or the Senate can initiate bills, however it is the sole realm of the House to initiate budgetting matters. Both need to ratify a compromise bill should identical bills not pass both before they are sent to the Pres. to sign. The schoolhouse rock video didn't clarify this one really well.
spacetrader
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2008
- Messages
- 2,681
YES. we are getting rid of 'old tv', for a better, clearer signal PLUS the room now to provide nationwide free internet access. imo free net access, even if slow, will be magnitudes more valuable to the people then TV is.
spacetrader
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2008
- Messages
- 2,681
exactly. as do many people. and its really these type of people that dont have their converter boxes yet. i dont have mine yet, and i dont really care. ill buy it when the tv signal goes out. if i have to wait a week for shipping, i will live without tv for that week. my life WILL continue.
bigstusexy
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2002
- Messages
- 3,194
Thanks for your reply, I didn't think Democrats had the house, shows you how much I've been paying attention
Also thanks for answer the question, in truth I don't think it's going to make a huge difference, either way but its more of a cauciios move on the greater good.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2007
- Messages
- 14,662
Only problem with your statement:
They've been broadcasting it on the radio too; maybe not as much, but it did come up sometimes.
Aside from that, I pretty much feel the same. Even if I didn't have Cable or TV, I would be perfectly fine getting my news from the radio; I would just have to find a reputable source, first.
bigstusexy
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2002
- Messages
- 3,194
You're right I didn't know the Democrats had house.
What about the waiting list? No matter how they got there the program was a promise by the government to get people ready for the transistion and now they can't fufill that promise by the start and is the impact to businesses (if any) is greater than the impact to registered people that are waiting?
We don't have a phased plan allow channels to change over ahead of sechedule if they like but requiring them to broadcasts all mandaded programming and news/special events on the old standard and when they aren't they broadcast a message about the change. Then having a date where channels must do this, then a transision date where the change is made however you braodcast the message on the old standard and finally a full cut off date - that and not having the program run out of money. That way there is absolutely no way people don't know and the sting and fear is out while keeping communication and at least the essence of the service. However all thi is hindsight and we are stuck in a mess as usual.
Okay. Prove it then, since you're already asking him to.
Maybe I'll apply to law school after all. It doesn't sound like the admissions criteria are all that bad if you didn't notice that glaring flaw in your argument.
That, yes. Also, things like C-SPAN are part of the transparency requirements the government has to follow, so breaking access to it without making an attempt to provide a workaround could be a potential avenue to protest the initial transition. Possibly to protest it through the judiciary, but I wouldn't know and I'm not about to go trying to bully people into listening to my assertion by claiming I took one law class.
You honestly don't think someone who has 1/2 of their legal education done with probably has a better idea what is considered a fundamental right than someone who has never gone to law school? I'm not claiming I've taken one law class. Most of the 'law' classes that are offered in undergrad are a joke anyways and don't go into specifics enough to do anything really worthwhile. If you think you can handle it then go ahead and take the LSAT and apply to law school. If you get in and take con law you will understand that your definition of 'fundamental rights' is not the same thing as what courts see and what you will be taught.
I know this was clarified earlier in the thread, but I feel inclined to repeat it...
The transition is to DIGITAL TV not High Definition TV
I'm sorry, but in the past few months I have encounter so many people confused by this. And, most of them would argue till I'm blue in the face, that I am wrong and everyone must upgrade to HDTV.... uuggghhhh.
So, everyone without broadband is ignorant and uneducated??
I'm STUCK with dial-up. Not a choice for me.
I live in a small town in S. NH. I am only 10 minutes from the center of town. 30 minutes in either direction is a bigger city. I'm only 50 miles (straight line) from Boston.
Yet, the cable company won't service my road (or half the roads in town) because there aren't enough houses on the road to "warrant the expense".
DSL is only available in the center of town. I've been told outright by Verizon that the copper lines are too old and deteriorated to support DSL, and that there is no way they will ever replace them. I was also told to wait and someday, maybe, FIOS might be available. Yeah right.
That was just before Verizon decided to bail from NH, VT, and Maine... by selling the all their land lines to FairPoint Communications to "focus on more profitable regions". Thanks.
BTW, those copper lines are so bad that I'm LUCKY if I can connect at 28K... on a good day.
So, if the federal government decided to ban the use of fossil fuels in lieu of "alternative fuels", we should all just suck it up and finish paying for our now obsolete, over-priced automobiles anyway. And if we can't afford a new alternative fuel vehicle then we don't deserve the right to commute anyway?? I'm just saying...
I'm all in for better internet access for all.
You know, in this day and age, where communication is done via internet as much as, if not more than, via phone.... I'm surprised that internet access is not considered a Public Utility. Just my opinion.
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 31,350
If the government came out and gave everyone a voucher to buy a new car...
The analogy breaks down because having a vehicle is virtually a basic necessity of life unless you live in a city with a good public transportation system. Having TV is not a basic necessity of life.
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2006
- Messages
- 14,581
Yes. They're actually trying to do it right now through legislation.. actually, price us out of it so we can't afford it anymore. I have legislators in my state that think we need a $5/gal floor put on it, then start prices higher up from there.
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2006
- Messages
- 14,581
oh, I meant to add, I don't agree with it because it's not a proper economic policy for supply vs demand. On the same note, I don't agree with needing to bailout auto manufacturers in our country.. or bailing out banks that lend to anyone with a heartbeat.. or bailing out people who refuse to keep pace with technology after decades of analog signals being broadcast suddenly changing.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2005
- Messages
- 3,329
Anyone see this one?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/05/b...9829;♥♥♥♥♥media
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/05/b...9829;♥♥♥♥♥media