Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

cmeisenzahl · Oct 24, 2005, 11:15 AM

This is an outrageous misuse of taxpayer money. Nowhere in the Constitution are the feds given this authority.

http://tinyurl.com/an6m4

"Senate Looks to Spend $3B on Digital TV

By JENNIFER C. KERR
The Associated Press
Thursday, October 20, 2005; 9:22 PM

WASHINGTON -- Lawmakers want to spend $3 billion to make sure millions of Americans won't wake up to blank TV screens when the country makes the switch to all-digital broadcasts.

The subsidy was approved Thursday by the Senate Commerce Committee as part of legislation that would set April 7, 2009, as the firm date for television broadcasters to end their traditional analog transmissions and send their broadcasts via digital signals."

RIRedinPA · Oct 24, 2005, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by cmeisenzahl

This is an outrageous misuse of taxpayer money. Nowhere in the Constitution are the feds given this authority.

http://tinyurl.com/an6m4

"Senate Looks to Spend $3B on Digital TV

By JENNIFER C. KERR
The Associated Press
Thursday, October 20, 2005; 9:22 PM

WASHINGTON -- Lawmakers want to spend $3 billion to make sure millions of Americans won't wake up to blank TV screens when the country makes the switch to all-digital broadcasts.

The subsidy was approved Thursday by the Senate Commerce Committee as part of legislation that would set April 7, 2009, as the firm date for television broadcasters to end their traditional analog transmissions and send their broadcasts via digital signals."

Right on, I saw this the other day and was going to start a thread. Where does it state that access to digital television is an inalienable right? IIRC the article I read said much of the money would go to developing convertors for older televisions and distributing those convertors.

I guess the thought process here is twofold.

1, Woohoo, more pork!
2. If we can't see television then we can't see campaign ads. And we need to see campaign ads.

nonhuman · Oct 24, 2005, 01:49 PM

I want to know why the hell the government is forcing broadcasters to go digital in the first place. If the consumers ask for it the broadcasters will offer it. If they don't, there's no reason to give it to them.

nonhuman · Oct 24, 2005, 01:49 PM

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

2. If we can't see television then we can't see campaign ads. And we need to see campaign ads.

That may be the best argument I've ever seen for getting rid of my TV. Not that i watch it anyway...

smacintush · Oct 24, 2005, 01:51 PM

Well, they are claiming that emergency personnel need the frequencies for themselves and that television is the number one source for emergency information for the masses. This seems to be some justification.

Still haven't decided how I feel about though, my cynical nature agrees with Red ^

tie · Oct 24, 2005, 04:46 PM

Can you just give the direct link? Tinyurl is sloooow.

I don't see the constitutional issue here; it isn't mentioned in the article. As far as I know, Congress can spend our money on whatever it wants. The problem is that the Republican party is in control of corrupt politicians like Ted Stevens who have no restraints. Seriously, is there any time Stevens's name is mentioned when it is not associated with some pork barrel project?

There was a funny quote last week from Stevens where he promised to resign from the Senate if his $700 million bridge to nowhere (google it for details; it's basically a bridge from one uninhabited island to another) was cancelled. Write your representatives, everyone; I think this might be our chance to get rid of the jerk.

nonhuman · Oct 24, 2005, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by smacintush

Well, they are claiming that emergency personnel need the frequencies for themselves and that television is the number one source for emergency information for the masses. This seems to be some justification.

Still haven't decided how I feel about though, my cynical nature agrees with Red ^

So what they're trying to say is that currently emergency personal aren't able to do their jobs because of television?

AKcrab · Oct 24, 2005, 04:57 PM

Heh. Don't just blame Stevens. Young is quite the porker as well. I've been trying to vote them out of office since 1988.

(btw: You've been hoodwinked about the bridges, but I won't try and defend the projects. I just want to say that they way you've portrayed them is not accurate, BUT I do think they are a waste of money.)

SpaceMonkey · Oct 24, 2005, 05:01 PM

Constitutionally, it's perfectly fine. Interstate commerce and all that.

nonhuman · Oct 24, 2005, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

Constitutionally, it's perfectly fine. Interstate commerce and all that.

What does digital tv have to do with interstate commerce?

Chuckit · Oct 24, 2005, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by tie

Can you just give the direct link? Tinyurl is sloooow.

Erm…I think you have a problem with your connection. TinyURL is A-OK over here.

SpaceMonkey · Oct 24, 2005, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by nonhuman

What does digital tv have to do with interstate commerce?

It involves a commercial transaction across state lines. It's the same reason the FCC has always been able to regulate TV. Regulation of digital television isn't some dramatic break with the past.

nonhuman · Oct 24, 2005, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

It involves a commercial transaction across state lines. It's the same reason the FCC has always been able to regulate TV. Regulation of digital television isn't some dramatic break with the past.

Actually it doesn't. There's only a commercial transaction if you're paying for the broadcast, and you're only doing that if you're using cable or satellite which the FCC has no jurisdiction over.

SpaceMonkey · Oct 24, 2005, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Actually it doesn't. There's only a commercial transaction if you're paying for the broadcast, and you're only doing that if you're using cable or satellite which the FCC has no jurisdiction over.

Just because only a few people are paying for it doesn't make it a non-interstate commerical transaction. And yes, the FCC has has some regulatory oversight over cable companies.

nonhuman · Oct 24, 2005, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

Just because only a few people are paying for it doesn't make it a non-interstate commerical transaction. And yes, the FCC has has some regulatory oversight over cable companies.

Cable television is a commercial transaction. Satellite television is a commercial transaction. Broadcast television is not a commercial transaction. It's not even a transaction, it's a one-way transfer of data.

And yeah, you're right about the cable thing, but the FCC doesn't have the same sort of control over cable television as it does over the airwaves (which, supposedly, belong to the people).

SpaceMonkey · Oct 24, 2005, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Cable television is a commercial transaction. Satellite television is a commercial transaction. Broadcast television is not a commercial transaction. It's not even a transaction, it's a one-way transfer of data.

There's also potential interstate commerce issues involved when you include advertising in your broadcast signals. To be honest, I'm not sure if the interstate commerce clause was actually used as justification when the FCC was first formed, but it is a plausible argument.

Montezuma58 · Oct 24, 2005, 05:43 PM

The reason the Feds want to push the transition to digital is that it will free up a good chunk of spectrum for other uses. A big portion of the licenses for using the newly available air waves will be auctioned off. It's been estimated that the sale of those license will fetch at leas $5 billion.